A: the combination of a Supreme Court case, state laws, a state level court case, and laws governing infant DNA.
A 2013 Supreme Court ruling opened the floodgates to unwarranted CODIS usage, while state laws and court cases enable continued abuse of the system. Additional laws govern the collection and storage of infant DNA.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v King that collection of arrestee’s DNA did not violate fourth amendment rights; however, since this ruling, states have pushed the limits and created policies that allow DNA to stay in the database indefinitely, be used for familial searching to incriminate family members without a warrant, permit discovery of susceptibility to certain mental and physical illnesses, and be used for racial profiling. These developments are harmful to citizens’ privacy, as anyone, even a minor, who is pulled over at a traffic stop is subject to being sampled and having their DNA kept in these databases indefinitely.
Maryland v. King upheld the Maryland Statute permitting DNA sampling for "development of a population data base," such as CODIS (Ferrell). There is no current statutory ban on using DNA samples for other purposes, meaning that "the FBI is free to alter its current practice at will” (Cox). No constraints exist on the FBI’s ability to expand usage of CODIS, which has grown unchecked ever since.
State rulings have expanded on this right, allowing DNA databases to be used for non-investigative measures. As of 2004, 48 states made DNA records easily accessible for purposes beyond identification (Cox). Currently, 24 states allow police DNA records to be used for non-law enforcement purposes. Massachusetts allows “disclosure of genetic information, including personal information, where such disclosure may be required as a condition of federal funding or for advancing ‘humanitarian purposes’” (Cox), which can be interpreted quite loosely. Alabama allows the database to be used for medical research (Ferrell). This practice is commonly known as function creep, where the original purpose of the database and its current usage do not align.
Michigan also dealt with a court case, People v Holtzer, in the Michigan Court of Appeals. A man was convicted of a crime due to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from hairs found in the victim’s bedroom. The court found this investigative method to be legal. The decision and the experts involved stated that DNA identification should only be used as an exclusionary method, not an inclusionary method, because even if the DNA matches perfectly, it could be from a different person. It is not an exact system, yet most states choose to ignore the findings of scientists involved in this investigation, setting a precedent. The case states, “If there's differences between the two mitochondrial DNA sequences, then you know they don't come from the same people, whereas if they are the same, they may come from the same people, but that is not always the case.” False positives are common, yet many investigations act as if a match is conclusive (Thompson).
Finally, the State Department of Public Health in all 50 states and the District of Columbia require a blood spot test on every infant (Newsweek). This law allows for easy access to DNA information. Parents only learn about the requirements when the mother is in labor at the hospital, raising questions about informed consent. If they say no to the blood spot, they can be denied services by the hospital. 12 states hold the blood sample for 21 or more years and in 2009 the NIH created a national repository of newborn DNA, making this information readily available to CODIS. 4 states have declared the spots state property, allowing them to do as they please with the information.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v King that collection of arrestee’s DNA did not violate fourth amendment rights; however, since this ruling, states have pushed the limits and created policies that allow DNA to stay in the database indefinitely, be used for familial searching to incriminate family members without a warrant, permit discovery of susceptibility to certain mental and physical illnesses, and be used for racial profiling. These developments are harmful to citizens’ privacy, as anyone, even a minor, who is pulled over at a traffic stop is subject to being sampled and having their DNA kept in these databases indefinitely.
Maryland v. King upheld the Maryland Statute permitting DNA sampling for "development of a population data base," such as CODIS (Ferrell). There is no current statutory ban on using DNA samples for other purposes, meaning that "the FBI is free to alter its current practice at will” (Cox). No constraints exist on the FBI’s ability to expand usage of CODIS, which has grown unchecked ever since.
State rulings have expanded on this right, allowing DNA databases to be used for non-investigative measures. As of 2004, 48 states made DNA records easily accessible for purposes beyond identification (Cox). Currently, 24 states allow police DNA records to be used for non-law enforcement purposes. Massachusetts allows “disclosure of genetic information, including personal information, where such disclosure may be required as a condition of federal funding or for advancing ‘humanitarian purposes’” (Cox), which can be interpreted quite loosely. Alabama allows the database to be used for medical research (Ferrell). This practice is commonly known as function creep, where the original purpose of the database and its current usage do not align.
Michigan also dealt with a court case, People v Holtzer, in the Michigan Court of Appeals. A man was convicted of a crime due to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from hairs found in the victim’s bedroom. The court found this investigative method to be legal. The decision and the experts involved stated that DNA identification should only be used as an exclusionary method, not an inclusionary method, because even if the DNA matches perfectly, it could be from a different person. It is not an exact system, yet most states choose to ignore the findings of scientists involved in this investigation, setting a precedent. The case states, “If there's differences between the two mitochondrial DNA sequences, then you know they don't come from the same people, whereas if they are the same, they may come from the same people, but that is not always the case.” False positives are common, yet many investigations act as if a match is conclusive (Thompson).
Finally, the State Department of Public Health in all 50 states and the District of Columbia require a blood spot test on every infant (Newsweek). This law allows for easy access to DNA information. Parents only learn about the requirements when the mother is in labor at the hospital, raising questions about informed consent. If they say no to the blood spot, they can be denied services by the hospital. 12 states hold the blood sample for 21 or more years and in 2009 the NIH created a national repository of newborn DNA, making this information readily available to CODIS. 4 states have declared the spots state property, allowing them to do as they please with the information.
