Essay On Legally Obtaining A Suspect's DNA

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

In Maryland, police officers are permitted to collect DNA from suspects who are arrested for crimes of violence, burglary, or attempted burglary. This has proven to be effective in identifying criminals. One of the criminals that was caught using DNA evidence, Alonzo Jay King, Jr. was extremely dissatisfied when he was linked to and charged for another crime when he was arrested and charged for assault. When his DNA was taken, law enforcement officers found that his DNA matched the DNA evidence of a previous rape case. Because of this discovery, King received the life sentence and decided to appeal his case, arguing that the MDCA (Maryland DNA Collection Act) was unconstitutional and violated the Fourth Amendment. The fundamental question

This paper explores deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) collection and its relationship to solving crimes. The collection of DNA is one of the most important steps in identifying a suspect in a crime. DNA evidence can either convict or exonerate an individual of a crime. Furthermore, the accuracy of forensic identification of evidence has the possibility of leaving biased effects on a juror (Carrell, Krauss, Liberman, Miethe, 2008). This paper examines Carrells et al’s research along with three other research articles to review how DNA is collected, the effects that is has on a juror and the pros and cons of DNA collection in the Forensic Science and Criminal Justice community.

DNA forensics is a division of forensic science that focuses on the use of genetic material in criminal investigation to answer questions pertaining to legal situations, including criminal and civil cases. Through DNA testing, law enforcement officers are able to identify human remains or the individual responsible for a crime. DNA testing is a highly advanced scientific process that involves replicating the human DNA sequence to create a genetic map of an individual. Because of its reliability, DNA testing has become a significant factor in criminal cases. However, it has also been identified as having the potential to violate privacy and constitutional rights. The DNA identification process consists of five stages. These five stages

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

I. Before the 1980’s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics.

DNA testing is a critical and accurate tool in linking accused and even convicted criminals for crimes, and should be widely used to assess guilt or innocence before jail sentences are imposed. It was started up by scientists Francis C. Crick and James D, Watson in 1953 as they had described the uses, structures and purpose of the DNA “deoxyribonucleic acid” genetic fingerprint that contains organism information about an individual (testing

April 10, 2009, Alonzo King was arrested and charged with first and second degree assault. According the booking procedure in Maryland along with the Maryland DNA Collection Act (MDCA) King was photographed, fingerprinted, and his cheek was swabbed for a DNA sample. Only 28 other states participate in DNA swab laws. Soon after King’s DNA was processed it was matched to an open rape case from 2003. King and his attorney moved to suppress the DNA arguing that his DNA was obtained through violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The attorney moved to suppress based on the fact that King’s DNA was obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure. His motion was denied and King was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. King appealed his ruling on the grounds that the Maryland DNA Collection Act is unconstitutional. The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in the favor of King, ruling that the MDCA is unconstitutional. The case reached the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court justices voted 5 to 4 that the Maryland DNA Collection act is constitutional. This

Due to the uniqueness of DNA it has become a powerful tool in criminal investigations

DNA forensics can also narrow down suspect pools, exonerate innocent suspects, and link crimes together if the same DNA is found at both scenes. However, without existing suspects, a DNA profile cannot direct an investigation because current knowledge of genotype-phenotype relation is too vague for DNA phenotyping. For example, a profile from a first time offender that has no match in any database may give the information that the criminal is a left handed male of medium stature with red hair and freckles. It would be impossible to interview every man who fits that description. However, with available suspects, DNA forensics has many advantages over other forms of evidence. One is the longevity of DNA. Although it will deteriorate if exposed to sunlight, it can remain intact for centuries under proper conditions (Sachs, 2004). Because DNA is so durable, investigators can reopen old cases to reexamine evidence.

There have been many incidents where cases have needed a solid prosecution in order to convict the defendant in a murder or rape case. This is where DNA Testing comes in to help. By taking a DNA test, a person can be found guilty or not guilty. If a person claims they have been raped there can be a sperm sample taken from the suspect in order to prove that he is guilty or not. In addition, in a murder case there can be blood taken from the suspect so they can tell of his innocence. There are several ways to determine whether a person is guilty or not by this method. Many cases have begun to use this method saying that it is foolproof. People say this is the method of the future of crime

DNA evidence is extremely helpful in criminal trials not only because it can determine the guilt of a suspect, but also because it can keep innocent people from going to jail. The suspect must leave a sample of their DNA at the crime scene in order for testing to occur, but DNA can be found in the form of many things such as semen, blood, hair, saliva, or skin scrapings. According to Newsweek, "thousands of people have been convicted by DNA's nearly miraculous ability to search out suspects across space and time… hundreds of innocent people have also been freed, often after years behind bars, sometimes just short of the death chamber" (Adler ). Though some may think it is a waste of time to go

With regard to the US, where social science and STS research have, focused less on forensic databases and more on the production of expertise and evidence in court, Jay Aronson provided a historical account of the early practices, the scientific and legal controversies, and the ultimately successful acceptance of forensic DNA evidence in court in 2007. Another particularity of social science and STS research in this domain is that it has so far mostly concentrated its “high end” forensic technologies, namely those which received a lot of public attention because they were new, because stakeholders in the criminal justice system struggled to determine the parameters of scientific reliability and admissibility, or because they were prominently featured in the media. While the use of DNA analysis for police investigations and forensic casework dates back to the late 1980s, the second half of the 1990s marked the beginning of the quest to render DNA profiles systematically and routinely searchable and minable by setting up centralized DNA databases in many countries around the world. A DNA molecule is a long, twisting chain known as a double helix. DNA looks pretty complex, but it's really made of only four nucleotides: Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine. These nucleotides exist as base pairs that link together like a ladder. Adenine and Thymine always bond together as a pair, and Cytosine and Guanine bond together as a pair.

She focused on providing to give persons credit for,that they should know how the DNA knowing the significance of its identification, collection and preservation at the crime scene is critical in obtaining accurate test outgrowth. Anyways, she also established report for the clarifying conclusions of DNA analysis, and she stated that there are three types of results that can occur in the DNA testing, the inclusion, exclusion, and inconclusive. Inclusion, when the DNA profile of a known individual (a victim or suspect) matches the DNA profile from the crime scene evidence, the individual is "included" as a capable of becoming real source of that evidence. While the exclusion, when the DNA profile from an individual (a victim or suspect) does not match the DNA profile bring about from the crime scene evidence, the referenced individual is "excluded" as the patron of the evidence. Lastly, the inconclusive results, exemplify that the DNA testing did not yieldthe corollaryinformation that would allow a individual to be either included or excluded of the biological evidence that provides what is wanted or

DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid, which is found in almost all living things. DNA serves as a code for the creation and maintenance of new cells within an organism. Within humans, it is found in almost every cell. Although most of our DNA is found within the nucleus of our cells as nuclear DNA, a very small amount of our DNA is also found within the mitochondria as mitochondrial DNA. Because mitochondrial DNA is generally not used for solving crimes, for the purpose of this paper it will be disregarded.