The DNA-testing technology has had significant implications in the criminal justice system. Between 1989 and 2003, many prisoners sentenced to death were exonerated using DNA evidence. The criminal justice system now uses DNA-testing in pretrial procedures to enhance credibility. According to Henning (2010), the U.S. Department of Justice came up with the new policy allowing the collection of DNA samples from people arrested or detained but not convicted. The Department of Justice cited the United States v. Pool ruling which concluded that government’s interest in collecting DNA samples from individuals facing charges outweighed intrusion of privacy. The government’s position on DNA use in pretrial procedures is justified as DNA testing makes it easy to determine whether one is guilty or not in the early stages to prevent errors.
The article by Henning (2010) summarizes the key legal and privacy concerns on DNA-testing during pretrial procedures. According to the article, the use of DNA-testing has expanded over the years as the federal and state laws have been amended to facilitate DNA use. The laws authorize the mandatory collection of biological matter by local law enforcement, which is sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for analysis. FBI stores the DNA samples in a database which law enforcement officers will use to match with crime scene evidence. Early laws facilitated extraction of DNA from individuals suspected of violent and sex-based felonies such as murder, kidnapping, and rape.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The law has expanded the categories of individuals required to undergo DNA testing. The federal government has authorized that most states conduct compulsory DNA-testing for individuals convicted of specific criminal offenses, including all felonies in all jurisdiction and even misdemeanors and crimes that carry more than a six-month sentence. People arrested but not convicted as well as aliens are also part of the increased DNA-testing policy.
Henning (2010) explores the privacy concerns of increased DNA testing in pretrial procedures. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides the right to secure persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Seizures involve interference with property and intrusion. DNA-testing qualifies as an extreme form of intrusion. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against searches, seizure, and invasion, but it provides an exemption. In some instances, the expectation of privacy is not guaranteed, particularly for individuals who break the law.
The article by Scrutin (2015) seems to focus more on privacy concerns rather than the legal concerns of arrestee gene capture. Scrutin (2015) argues that DNA-testing has the potential has the potential of making everyone a suspect as the government keeps expanding laws to support DNA testing of arrestees. DNA science reveals limitless information about individuals, families, their travels, humanity and potential new areas involving human behavior patterns and physical appearance. Using DNA pushes the limits of privacy in gathering evidence as test-on-arrest sampling supports government’s move of mass databanking. Scrutin (2015) privacy concerns are justified, particularly the argument on what happens to DNA records once a suspect is not guilty or has finished serving a sentence. DNA testing is not like fingerprinting or the occasional police searches. DNA information is stored in a database that can be easily accessed by the police department or other individuals who can manipulate or use the information for their gain.
DNA-testing has been used widely used among convicted criminals, paroles and in post-conviction processes. The criminal justice wants to extend the use of DNA-testing among arrestees awaiting trial. In United States v. Pool, the ruling concluded that DNA-testing is no more intrusive than fingerprinting. The United States v. Mitchell found that DNA-testing reveals private genetic information. The US v. Mitchell rejected the ‘reasonableness’ argument claiming that DNA-testing seeks to elevate the finding of probable cause.
As much as the DNA testing is intrusive, the criminal justice system only uses it for identification purposes. The DNA-testing is not used to learn about the genetics of arrestees or convicted criminals, but it is used to identify whether they are guilty of a crime or not. Hall (2014) uses the case of Vonette W. Salisbury, Maryland whereby a man broke into her home on September 21, 2003. The attacker concealed his identity and raped Vonette at gunpoint. The victim underwent forensic examination for sexual assault, and the DNA was uploaded into Maryland DNA database. No matches were found from the DNA database until 2009 when Alonzo Jay King Jr. was arrested in Wicomico County, MA accused of scaring a group of people with a shotgun. As part of the booking procedure, the police took a cheek swab for DNA-testing under Maryland DNA Collection Act (Hall, 2014). King Jr. was not a suspect in the Vonette rape case, but the combined DNA Index System provided the police with a “hit” on King’s DNA profile. King’s DNA matched the DNA found in Vonette during sexual assault test. The DNA results provided the probable cause for a search warrant and a buccal swab.
Probable cause is a provision of the Fourth Amendment that must be met before searching, asking for a warrant or making an arrest. The court often finds probable cause when there is a reasonable basis to support why the crime was committed. A probable cause can be the basis for warrantless search or seizure hence the existence of “police stop and frisk.” Individuals arrested without a warrant are brought before a competent authority to evaluate the probable cause. The principle of probable cause implies that one is arrested for suspicion of committing a crime, and DNA-testing can be useful in determining whether one is innocent or guilty.
According to Conolly et al. (2009), DNA-testing is not foolproof, but it has become a crucial part of the criminal justice system. The relevance of DNA-testing was demonstrated in the Innocence Project; hence DNA-testing should be a part of the pretrial processes. It does not make sense to introduce DNA-testing in post-trial procedures when one has been sentenced to years, yet such mistakes could have been avoided if DNA-testing was allowed in pretrial procedures. Conolly et al. (2009) give caution against abuse of DNA-testing. The government should create a system whereby DNA information is only used for identifying crime scene evidence. DNA information should not be manipulated or shared with individuals such as pharmaceutical companies to market their products to the public. Conolly et al. (2009) also support Scrutin’s (2015) concerns regarding the storage of DNA information of individuals who are not charged or those who have finished their sentences.
Undoubtedly, with the evolution of DNA-technology and increasing reliance on DNA information in the criminal justice system, it is only a matter of time before DNA-testing for arrestees becomes normal criminal justice process. The Maryland v. King Case showed that some states had adopted mandatory DNA-testing of arrestees suspected of engaging in criminal activity. King was charged with public disturbance with a shotgun; hence Maryland police had the right to take a DNA-test. The test confirmed that King’s DNA was already in the system, and it was a hit for the DNA involved in a rape case in 2003 (Kaye, 2014). Apart from Maryland, the state of California requires DNA testing for all felony arrestees’ immediately after arrest or during booking.
The adoption of DNA-testing in pre-trial activities is guided by “reasonableness” that outweigh privacy concerns. Police officers do not have the power to conduct DNA-tests for anyone arrested, for example, individuals arrested for routine traffic crimes. The laws allow DNA-testing for individuals arrested for felonies or crimes that warrant more than a six-month sentence. Before one is arrested, police officers apply the principle of probable cause; thus it makes sense to take DNA-tests as part of the arrestee processing which will be used solely for identification purposes.
In conclusion, the issue of arrestee DNA-testing contentious because it is a new phenomenon. The Maryland v. King case showed the importance of arrestee DNA-testing as it enabled police officers to identify a sexual assault perpetrator six years later. Maryland v. King also exposed privacy concerns associated with arrestee DNA-testing and the constitutionality of arrestee DNA-testing and used in the US courts. The government should come up with a clear framework to guide arrestee DNA-testing and to address the many privacy concerns stemming from arrestee DNA-testing. Arrestee DNA-testing will be useful to the criminal justice system if done right, it will make it easy to identify criminals because their DNA information is already in the database.
References
Connolly, P., Keller, D. R., Leever, M. G., & White, B. C. (2009). Ethics in action: A case-based approach . John Wiley & Sons.
Hall, L. A. (2014). Arrestee Number Two, Who Are You-Suspicionless DNA Testing of Pre- Trial Arrestees and the Fourth Amendment Implications. Mo. L. Rev. , 79 , 755.
Henning, A. C. (2008). Compulsory DNA Collection: A Fourth Amendment Analysis . Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Kaye, D. H. (2014). Why So Contrived-Fourth Amendment Balancing, Per Se Rules, and DNA Databases after Maryland v. King. J. Crim. L. & Criminology , 104 , 535.
Strutin, K. (2015, January 1). DNA without warrant: Decoding privacy, probable cause and personhood, 18 RICH. J.L. & PUB. INT. 319 (2014). Retrieved from https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.c om/&httpsredir=1&article=1307&context=jolp
