Running Head: CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1

Criminal Justice

Jayne Schiess

CJ 1010

Professor Brett Terpstra

The DNA Juggernaut

In many of cases, DNA sampling has helped solve problems that detectives have faced

when trying to find the perpetrator. Forensic evidence is used to determine crucial facts when it

comes to crime scenes, such as finding the cause of death, time of death, and aids in figuring

out the identity of whom the victims and culprits are. There is no question that forensic science

has helped investigations solve cases, however; does that mean that police should be allowed to

collect DNA samples from arrestees? This is an ethical dilemma that has been posed by many

watch groups. There are valid questions concerning the ability of police officers ability to collect

DNA from arrestees. It is hard to form an opinion if you don’t know what is meant by DNA

and what the pro arguments are and what the con arguments are.

Beginning with the first issue, what is DNA sampling? According to USLegal a “DNA

sample refers to a blood or swab specimen from a person…” This is the legal definition of

DNA, officers are allowed to get DNA samples from people that include blood and swab

specimen but these aren’t the only type of DNA samples there are. DNA samples also include

hair, fingernail clippings, fingerprints, seminal fluids and skin cells. Fingerprints are considered

biological markers because fingerprints are unique to each person much like DNA. Each

biological sample includes that person's genetic code. When it comes to crime scenes,

investigators are able to get DNA samples from many different things; such as, the rim of a cup,

sweaters, bedding, door handles, and anything else that could have possibly come into contact

with the suspects unique biological markers such as DNA for evidence. Investigators don't just
DNA JUGGERNAUT 3

use DNA sampling to find the suspect, investigators use DNA to determine victims, and

contributors . They even use DNA to exclude suspects.

States across the US use DNA sampling to solve cases. Some states are wanting to take

DNA sampling a step further. According to Larry K. Gaines and Roger LeRoy Miller “Today,

forty-six states collect DNA samples from all persons convicted of a felony. In addition sixteen

states gather DNA from those found guilty of a misdemeanor, and thirty-five do the same for

juvenile felony offenders. (PG 207)” Many states are taking DNA samples from felony

offenders to anyone who is arrested. It is this practice that is causing concerns among whether or

not taking DNA samples from people who have merely been arrested is ethical or necessary.

Arguments of the pro-side of DNA sampling of arrestees side are, that it is the same

thing to take DNA samples from those who have been convicted of a felony ( which legally

means this person is declared guilty of committing a serious crime, such as murder or rape), is

the same as taking samples from an arrestee, which means you are taken into custody without

being declared guilty of a crime.

It is also argued that by DNA sampling arrestees, the DNA data banks will increase and

possible connections to cold case files or future investigation will be more successful. The New

York Times Newspaper posted a news article talking about how DNA had helped solved a cold

case that stumped police for decades. “GED match data helped identify the suspect in the Golden

State Killer case, and it has already been used by Parabon to help investigators with several cold

cases across the country (Fortin, 2018).” The Golden State Killer has not been the only case that
DNA JUGGERNAUT 4

has been solved with the expansion of the DNA database. Furthermore; DNA sampling has been

used to prove some convicted inmates innocent of their charges in a couple cases as well.

“Horace Roberts, 60, was freed from a California prison this month after DNA evidence showed

that he had been wrongfully convicted of murder nearly two decades ago (Garcia, 2018).” DNA

evidence has been used in different ways when it comes to crime cases and is beneficial by

increasing the chances of solving crimes and finding the truth.

Those who support collecting DNA samples from arrestees also argue that it could

prevent less serious crimes from happening. A study was done in Maryland to determine

whether taking DNA samples on the first arrest prevents future criminal acts. “The Maryland

Study assessed the criminal histories of three offenders and found that if DNA samples had been

required upon arrest, twenty crimes could have been prevented. (DNA Forensics, 2018).” Many

more studies have been done to determine whether or not DNA sampling could prevent future

crimes from happening and each study states that there is significant evidence to conclude that

DNA sampling of arrestees could have prevented more serious crimes from happening. Some

also argue that it would be better for the arrestee to be arrested on a less serious charge than what

they could possibly commit in the future.

Continuing on, some argue that privacy of an individual who is involved in criminal

activity isn't as important as the public's interest. “The Supreme Court’s ruling (as argued by the

majority) holds that collecting DNA evidence is no more intrusive than taking fingerprints or

photographs, and the collection procedure (buccal swabbing) is painless and minimally invasive.

(Cummins, 2013).” Also the public has stated that their safety is priority and by collecting

samples it makes it safer for the public. “CODIS has produced over 435,887 hits assisting in
DNA JUGGERNAUT 5

more than 424,268 investigations. (CODIS - NDIS Statistics, 2018).” CODIS stands for the

National Combined DNA Index System which is a DNA database where DNA samples are sent

to be analyzed. On the subject of invasiveness for the individuals, is it an invasion of privacy

to allow states to have the genetic code. According to Sarah B. Berson “Nine states

automatically expunge a DNA profile if there is no conviction. However, many states require the

person to request that their profile be expunged.” The states have made it possible for

individuals to get rid of their profile.

When it comes the side of arguments against DNA sampling, many people are unsure of

how accurate the DNA sampling really is in the first place, and how it could lead to a lot of false

convictions. “Unless and until such studies are undertaken, legal decision makers will continue

to fly blind when it comes to assessing the reliability of a reported forensic match (Koehler,

2017).” Humans aren’t perfect, and we make mistakes, so there is always the possibility of

human error and or even the possibility of contaminated DNA sampling that could lead to

inaccurate results. If very strict protocols and practice guidelines aren’t in place or the personel

collecting samples are biased or reckless with labeling or cross contamination, the DNA samples

may be inaccurate or misleading.

The statement “Someone is innocent until proven guilty” is also another concerning

matter when it comes to DNA sampling. This statement ties in with the belief that it is a violation

of the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment prohibits searches and seizures from

happening without a warrant or probable cause. According to Christen Giannaros “This

important protection is explicitly violated each time law enforcement collects and processes an
DNA JUGGERNAUT 6

arrestee’s DNA, because there is no probable cause to search the arrestee for any crimes other

than the one he was arrested for.” An arrest and guilt do not mean the same thing and persons

should not be treated as guilty until proven so. This also means that the individual is under the

protection of the fourth amendment and if there is no warrant or probable cause.

Crime labs can also be overwhelmed with so many new samples that there will be a big

delay in getting the results for more serious crimes. “...but it then took them more than three

months even to upload his DNA into the state database; these types of delays are common

because of huge evidence backlogs (the government admits that the average delay is about a

month) (Risher, 2018).” Due to the amount of tests and materials being used, it will also cost

taxpayers a lot more money to help fund and supply labs. According to Edwin Yohnka “...to

collect, process and store DNA samples from all persons arrested, for example, estimates are that

the annual cost to taxpayers could be as much as $174 million.” People are being taxed millions

of dollars for DNA samples of arrestees and many people disagree with the practice, not to

mention that the samples are creating a lot of work for labs and are causing delays for more

serious or urgent samples needing to be tested.

Many people will start to say or think that the system is biased. According to Larry K.

Gaines and Roger LeRoy Miller “ Forty percent of DNA profiles in the federal database belong

to African Americans, and given a greater law enforcement emphasis on immigration offenses,

Hispanics could dominate such database in the future. ” Due to many other factors that contribute

to the possibility of arrest, emphasis of certain offenses could sway police into arresting some

rather than others thus creating the perception that the system is biased due to the difference in

DNA profiles of ethnicity or race.

REFERENCES

DNA Evidence Basics: Types of Samples Suitable for DNA Testing. (2012, August 9).

https://www.nij.gov/topics/forensics/evidence/dna/basics/pages/types-of-samples.aspx

Fortin, J. (2018, August 23). In Serial Rape Case That Stumped Police, Genealogy Database

Leads to Arrest. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/us/ramsey-street-rapist-dna.html

Garcia, S. E. (2018, October 16). DNA Evidence Exonerates a Man of Murder After 20 Years in

Prison. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/us/20-years-exonerated-dna-prison.html

DNA Forensics. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.dnaforensics.com/Arrestees.aspx

Cummins, K. (2013, June 4). News Releases.

http://victimsofcrime.org/media/news-releases/2013/06/04/taking-dna-samples-from-arre

stees-will-prevent-future-crimes

Koehler, J. J. (2017, Winter). FORENSICS OR FAUXRENSICS?

https://libprox1.slcc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx

Risher, M. (2018, July 09). Supreme Court Ruling a Blow to Genetic Privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/mass-incarceration/supreme-court-ruling-blow-g

enetic-privacy

Yohnka, E. (2011, May 25). Collecting DNA at Arrest: A Bad Idea Justified by a Bad

Prosecution.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/edwin-yohnka/collecting-dna-at-arrest_b_675447.html

CODIS - NDIS Statistics. (2018, October 12).

https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/ndis-statistics
DNA JUGGERNAUT 8

Claridge, J. (2016, December 12). Taking DNA Samples.

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/taking-dna-samples.html

Giannaros, C. (2015, February 18). Why Collection of Arrestee DNA Violates the Fourth

Amendment.

https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2015/02/christen-giannaros-dna-collection/

Debating DNA Collection. (n.d.). Retrieved November, 2009, from

https://nij.gov/journals/264/Pages/debating-DNA.aspx