Should Federal Agents Be Allowed For Collect Dna From Anyone Arrested?

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

art. IV). The Supreme Court argued this case with the underlying assumption that the appropriate use of a search is decided by how intrusive the process is and how important the information is to the government. The cheek swabbing for the DNA was found to be minimally invasive. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emphasized the importance of the information to the government in identifying criminals and criminal history. Furthermore, he described the DNA test as a more efficient way of identifying convicts, just like photos and fingerprints. He believed that it is a very useful way of putting the right people behind bars, and it is not invasive enough to violate the Fourth Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia proposed a dissent, arguing that the “Fourth Amendment categorically forbids suspicionless searches justified only by the government’s interest in detecting crime” (“Maryland v. King”). In other words, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t allow for searches without a cause, and there is no evidence of the suspect committing previous crimes. Additionally, Justice Scalia declared the use of DNA evidence to be “ineffective and redundant” (“MARYLAND v. KING”). Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Ginsburg joined Scalia in her dissent, but in the end, the court ruled that this use of DNA is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment by a 5-4

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

The proposal has sparked a moral dilemma. Victoria has had a DNA database since 1992 with the reasoning that, if a suspect is cleared, their DNA must be erased off the list. However, recently Victorian government has allowed police to collect samples from more suspected criminals, not just those accused of murder, serious assault or rape. Now they are allowed to collect from those accused of drug trafficking, arson causing death and aggravated burglary.

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)

When a crime has been committed, it is up to investigators and the courts to determine how to obtain a DNA sample from a suspect. Problems arise when an individual feels his or her Fourth Amendment rights have been violated when it comes to reasonableness of obtaining DNA, since many individuals feel they should be protected from unreasonable search of their person, home, and personal effects. There are several factors that need to be considered how to legally obtain DNA from a suspect. These can include warrant and probable cause issues, totality of circumstances, whether the crime in question is a violent felony, and if the suspect has been arrested, or previously arrested and convicted

Behavioural privacy also plays a significant role in genetic profiling, as it is a technology which is frequently being enhanced, requiring constant review and law reform, ensuring that justice will be present, both presently and in the future, to protect the rights of each individual. Behavioural privacy refers to the use of genetic profiling predicting the past in an inadequate, unjust manner, as to restrict the confidentiality of individuals. Issues on genetic profiling, specifically behavioural privacy have arisen and been expressed in an article titled ‘Call to control police use of DNA’, as Associate Professor Jeremy Gans, of Melbourne Law School says ''Australian legislation leaves rape victims, just like their rapists, exposed to investigation aimed at determining their connection with any unsolved crime on a jurisdiction's DNA database''. This is present, as the Crimes Act 1914, division 7A section 23XX, part two, which states that inadmissibility of evidence from improper forensic procedures etc., does not apply where “(a) a provision of this Part required forensic material to be destroyed; and

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the development of DNA analysis technology has revolutionised the field of forensic science within the criminal justice system. As the refinement of procedures and technology continues, even minute samples of biological material (including blood, saliva, semen and skin cells) are able to be analysed and used to link or acquit perpetrators of crimes. (Whitney, R n.d.)

Let’s start by defining what in fact is DNA analysis. According to the FBI’s crime lab, the DNA analysis process can take place when bodily fluid stains and other biological tissues are found on physical evidence collected from a crime scene (FBI DNA Casework Unit, 2016). The DNA testing results obtained from evidence samples are compared to DNA from reference samples collected from known individuals. Such analyses may be able to associate victims and suspects with each other, with evidence items, or with a crime scene (FBI DNA Casework Unit, 2016). The FBI and other national crime labs can conduct nuclear, Y-chromosome, and or mitochondrial DNA testing depending on the technology and funds appropriated to the unit. Smaller fielded units would probably not be able to do some testing which would result in them forwarding evidence or using other assets with greater capabilities.

The Fourth Amendment gives United States citizens the right of protection from unlawful searches and seizures. Recently, in the case Maryland v. King the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of DNA during the booking process is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The ruling by the Supreme Court has to be further evaluated and questioned as it raises questions as to what is covered under the Fourth Amendment and if a person is allowed that right while in custody. Vikram Iyengar in his law review article ‘Maryland v. King: The case for uniform, nationwide DNA collection and DNA database laws in the United States’ will allow a closer look into how this ruling may cause a conflict with state laws. The ruling in this case will spur many

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

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.