Some local law enforcement agencies nationwide are compiling their own databases of DNA samples collected from suspected criminals and innocent people, according to an article in The New York Times.

The article in the New York Times yesterday detailed how several law enforcement agencies around the country have been compiling databases of DNA samples of everyone from detainees who are later cleared of charges to people who have fallen prey to criminals. These agencies say they don’t want to wait for federal databases. In some instances, the DNA samples they’re collecting don’t meet federal regulations to be included in the federal database.

Crime victims’ samples

“If an officer goes to your house on a burglary, they will swab a door handle and then they will ask, ‘Can we get a sample from the homeowner so we can eliminate them as the source?’ ” Doug Muldoon, police chief of Palm Bay told The New York Times. “They say, ‘Sure.’ ” The news has come to light just a week after the Supreme Court said it’s OK for law enforcement to collect DNA samples of people arrested for investigation of serious crimes. The Supreme Court, however, was obviously torn in their 5-4 ruling, which likened DNA samples to fingerprints.

Supreme Court dissenting opinion

A dissenting opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia mentioned the chilling effect that such a ruling could have, specifically mentioning the possibility that DNA samples of innocent people could be collected. On the one hand, DNA samples are a valuable tool for law enforcement to solve crimes and clear innocent people who have been convicted of crimes, especially in cases that are several decades old. But opening the door to collecting DNA samples could be opening the door to a Pandora’s Box of problems.

Potential Fourth Amendment Violations

Supreme Court justices in the dissenting opinion voiced concerns over violations of the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans against unreasonable searches and wondered how far public officials will go in collecting DNA samples: “Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the “identity” of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school.”

Privacy Concerns

The case decided by the Supreme Court, Maryland v. King, involved a Maryland man whose DNA was collected during his arrest for assault. His DNA was later found to match that found at a the scene of a burglary and rape a few years earlier, and he was convicted. Many Americans are becoming increasingly worried about their privacy being violated, especially after the news that the government has secretly been keeping tabs on people’s phone and Internet usage. What do you think? Do you think it’s OK for law enforcement to collect the DNA samples of suspected criminals and their victims? Photo credit: Nate Matias

In a ruling earlier this week, the Supreme Court authorized police to collect DNA samples from people arrested for serious crimes. The ruling effectively upholds laws in states such as New Jersey, which allow law enforcement to collect DNA samples from arrestees, not just those who have been convicted, of “serious” new crimes. The ruling did not define the “serious” crimes.

Supreme Court Ruling

“Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in a majority 5-4 opinion. All 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals to check for a possible match in federal and state DNA databanks. At issue in Maryland v. King was whether the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches, allows law enforcement to collect this information from people who have been arrested and not yet convicted. The Supreme Court said the value of solving crimes outweighs the minimal intrusion in collecting a DNA sample from people arrested for serious crimes.

Maryland Case

The case in Maryland centers on a man named Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in April 2009 on assault charges for pointing a shotgun at a group of people. He was later convicted of second-degree assault, a misdemeanor crime. During his arrest, police swabbed his cheek for saliva. The DNA sample was later found to match an unsolved 2003 rape. King was later convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison without parole. King appealed, saying officers should not have taken the DNA sample during his arrest on assault charges. The Maryland Court of Appeals sided with King, essentially saying that police had violated King’s Fourth Amendment rights because he had not yet been convicted. Had the Supreme Court not backed the DNA sample, King would have been released.

New Jersey Law

New Jersey law allows law enforcement to collect DNA from anyone who is arrested for certain violent crimes. Those crimes include: murder, manslaughter, second-degree aggravated assault; kidnapping; luring or enticing a child; engaging in sexual conduct with a child; and sexual assault.

“Suspicionless searches”

Four Supreme Court justices disagreed that the Fourth Amendment allows police to collect DNA samples from arrestees, which they called a “suspicionless searches.” “Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in a dissenting opinion. Crime victims’ advocates praised the ruling as helping law enforcement solve more crimes, but civil libertarians worried that the ruling would eventually allow law enforcement to collect DNA samples from people arrested for minor crimes. If you have any questions regarding how the ruling could affect you, you can contact Aretsky and Aretsky attorneys at law. Photo credit: agriculturasp

Should you be required to give a DNA sample if you’re arrested for punching someone? Current New Jersey law requires people arrested for certain violent crimes to submit a DNA sample, but an upcoming Supreme Court decision could cause that law to be suspended or expanded. The Supreme Court is weighing a case that tests the Constitutionality of police gathering DNA evidence from crime suspects. “This is the most important criminal procedure case this Court has had in decades,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. during oral arguments in the case back in February, during which he said DNA “is the 21st century fingerprint.”

New Jersey law

The case stems from an incident in Maryland, but could cast doubt on laws in other states such as New Jersey, which allow law enforcement to collect DNA from anyone who is arrested for certain violent crimes. Those crimes include: murder, manslaughter, second-degree aggravated assault; kidnapping; luring or enticing a child; engaging in sexual conduct with a child; and sexual assault.

Fourth Amendment vs. DNA sampling

At issue in Maryland v. King is whether states are allowed to collect DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes, in light of the fact that the Fourth Amendment protects people from unwarranted and unreasonable searches. In their brief to the Supreme Court, Maryland officials said that a “quick and painless” swab of the cheek is minimal, a procedure that is no more intrusive than other procedures detainees must routinely go through as part of an arrest.

Maryland case

In the Maryland case, a man named Alonzo Jay King, Jr., was arrested in April 2009 on assault charges for pointing a shotgun at a group of people. He was later convicted of second-degree assault, a misdemeanor crime. During his arrest, police swabbed his cheek for saliva. The DNA sample was later found to match an unsolved 2003 rape. King was later convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison without parole. King appealed, saying officers should not have taken the DNA sample during his arrest on assault charges. The Maryland Court of Appeals sided with King.

Is it premature to issue ruling?

The Supreme Court may well side with Maryland if they believe that DNA truly is the new fingerprint. But other justices voiced concerns about an individual’s right to privacy. The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision before it wraps up its session for the year.

In deciding the case, Supreme Court justices must weigh privacy concerns versus the government’s need to solve crimes. Another element that justices are considering is whether it is premature to make a ruling regarding a new technology which is still developing. Crime victims’ advocates say the DNA evidence that is collected is crucial in solving crimes that would otherwise go unsolved. New Jersey’s law regulating how DNA evidence is collected came under similar scrutiny back in 2011, when it was last expanded to its current version.