Concerns of Police Overstepping When Collecting DNA Samples Post Arrest
Since the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that law enforcement can take DNA samples from arrestees after an arrest is not a violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. the practice has become routine in many states, but some question whether law enforcement is crossing an ethical boundary in the widespread practice. Currently 30 states collect DNA from anyone arrested for a felony, with 8 of those states expanding the practice to specific misdemeanor arrests. Many in law enforcement point to highly publicized cases in which DNA profiles have helped solve cold cases by entering data into a national database, but some privacy advocates and experts think that the permanent storing of an individual’s genetic makeup in a government database simple because of an arrest—and not a conviction—not only incentivizes potential hackers to acquire that information, but runs afoul of an individual’s constitutional rights. Patrick Eddington of the Cato Institute articulates this point saying that, “governments should not be allowed to collect and permanently store sensitive and unique biological or biometric data on citizens not guilty of a crime. To allow it is to open the door not just to potential government misuse of the data, but to create a digital ‘honeypot’ for hackers to target and then engage in identity theft.”
DNA Testing is Not as Infallible as Some Prosecutors Would Lead People to Believe
Although DNA can certainly be strong evidence in various criminal cases, it too presents issues in practice. Just recently, it was uncovered that a state lab DNA analysist in Colorado, Yvonne “Missy” Woods, had manipulated and cut corners on testing that affected over 600 cases from 2007 through 2023. The District Attorney of Boulder County, Michael Dougherty, said that “This conduct is outrageous. Your viewers should be incredibly concerned when they hear that the state lab had issues with integrity, misconduct, falsifying data and tampering with results, and the dollar amount on top of it is incredibly concerning” referring to the $500,000 in overtime pay the analysis collected during that time period. Prosecutors and investigators are analyzing the cases they believe were affected by Ms. Woods conduct, but cases such as these should remind the public of other high-profile cases in which lab technicians manipulate data, drug weights, or otherwise compromise evidence that is then used to secure convictions against the wrongly accused or even the guilty. To make matters worse, many individuals do not have the resources to challenge the “evidence” through hiring their own analysists who can combat these assertions made by government funded labs. Anyone who believes they were subjected to manipulated evidence or are currently being charged with a crime involving DNA evidence, should make sure they hire an experienced criminal defense attorney who is familiar with the limitations of testing, areas of potential manipulation, and has the experience and capability to uncover any potential erroneous “evidence.” Statistically speaking, many believe lab errors to be relatively rare; however, cases like this prove that lab manipulation and even unintentional error is not as far-fetched as some would like the public to believe.
