Does the FBI have your DNA yet?

[Marlin T]

F.B.I. and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases

By SOLOMON MOORE
Published: April 18, 2009
Law enforcement officials are vastly expanding their collection of DNA to include millions more people who have been arrested or detained but not yet convicted. The move, intended to help solve more crimes, is raising concerns about the privacy of petty offenders and people who are presumed innocent.
Skip to next paragraph More Profiles in the DNA Database





Until now, the federal government genetically tracked only convicts. But starting this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation will join 15 states that collect DNA samples from those awaiting trial and will collect DNA from detained immigrants — the vanguard of a growing class of genetic registrants.
The F.B.I., with a DNA database of 6.7 million profiles, expects to accelerate its growth rate from 80,000 new entries a year to 1.2 million by 2012 — a 17-fold increase. F.B.I. officials say they expect DNA processing backlogs — which now stand at more than 500,000 cases — to increase.
Law enforcement officials say that expanding the DNA databanks to include legally innocent people will help solve more violent crimes. They point out that DNA has helped convict thousands of criminals and has exonerated more than 200 wrongfully convicted people.
But criminal justice experts cite Fourth Amendment privacy concerns and worry that the nation is becoming a genetic surveillance society.
“DNA databases were built initially to deal with violent sexual crimes and homicides — a very limited number of crimes,” said Harry Levine, a professor of sociology at City University of New York who studies policing trends. “Over time more and more crimes of decreasing severity have been added to the database. Cops and prosecutors like it because it gives everybody more information and creates a new suspect pool.”
Courts have generally upheld laws authorizing compulsory collection of DNA from convicts and ex-convicts under supervised release, on the grounds that criminal acts diminish privacy rights.
DNA extraction upon arrest potentially erodes that argument, a recent Congressional study found. “Courts have not fully considered legal implications of recent extensions of DNA-collection to people whom the government has arrested but not tried or convicted,” the report said.
Minors are required to provide DNA samples in 35 states upon conviction, and in some states upon arrest. Three juvenile suspects in November filed the only current constitutional challenge against taking DNA at the time of arrest. The judge temporarily stopped DNA collection from the three youths, and the case is continuing.
Sixteen states now take DNA from some who have been found guilty of misdemeanors. As more police agencies take DNA for a greater variety of lesser and suspected crimes, civil rights advocates say the government’s power is becoming too broadly applied. “What we object to — and what the Constitution prohibits — is the indiscriminate taking of DNA for things like writing an insufficient funds check, shoplifting, drug convictions,” said Michael Risher, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.
This year, California began taking DNA upon arrest and expects to nearly double the growth rate of its database, to 390,000 profiles a year from 200,000.
One of those was Brian Roberts, 29, who was awaiting trial for methamphetamine possession. Inside the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles last month, Mr. Roberts let a sheriff’s deputy swab the inside of his cheek.
Mr. Roberts’s DNA will be translated into a numerical sequence at the F.B.I.’s DNA database, the largest in the world.
The system will search for matches between Mr. Roberts’s DNA and other profiles every Monday, from now into the indeterminate future — until one day, perhaps decades hence, Mr. Roberts might leave a drop of blood or semen at some crime scene.
Law enforcement officials say that DNA extraction upon arrest is no different than fingerprinting at routine bookings and that states purge profiles after people are cleared of suspicion. In practice, defense lawyers say this is a laborious process that often involves a court order. (The F.B.I. says it has never received a request to purge a profile from its database.)
When DNA is taken in error, expunging a profile can be just as difficult. In Pennsylvania, Ellyn Sapper, a Philadelphia public defender, has spent weeks trying to expunge the profile taken erroneously of a 14-year-old boy guilty of assault and bicycle theft. “I’m going to have to get a judge’s order to make sure that all references to his DNA are gone,” she said.
The police say that the potential hazards of genetic surveillance are worth it because it solves crimes and because DNA is more accurate than other physical evidence. “I’ve watched women go from mug-book to mug-book looking for the man who raped her,” said Mitch Morrissey, the Denver district attorney and an advocate for more expansive DNA sampling. “It saves women’s lives.”
Mr. Morrissey pointed to Britain, which has fewer privacy protections than the United States and has been taking DNA upon arrest for years. It has a population of 61 million — and 4.5 million DNA profiles. “About 8 percent of the people commit about 70 percent of your crimes, so if you can get the majority of that community, you don’t have to do more than that,” he said.
In the United States, 8 percent of the population would be roughly 24 million people.
Britain may provide a window into America’s genetic surveillance future: As of March 2008, 857,000 people in the British database, or about one-fifth, have no current criminal record. In December, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Britain violated international law by collecting DNA profiles from innocent people, including children as young as 10.
Critics are also disturbed by the demographics of DNA databases. Again Britain is instructive. According to a House of Commons report, 27 percent of black people and 42 percent of black males are genetically registered, compared with 6 percent of white people.
As in Britain, expanding genetic sampling in the United States could exacerbate racial disparities in the criminal justice system, according to Hank Greely, a Stanford University Law School professor who studies the intersection of genetics, policing and race. Mr. Greely estimated that African-Americans, who are about 12 percent of the national population, make up 40 percent of the DNA profiles in the federal database, reflective of their prison population. He also expects Latinos, who are about 13 percent of the population and committed 40 percent of last year’s federal offenses — nearly half of them immigration crimes — to dominate DNA databases.
Enforcement officials contend that DNA is blind to race. Federal profiles include little more information than the DNA sequence and the referring police agency. Subjects’ names are usually kept by investigators.
Rock Harmon, a former prosecutor for Alameda County, Calif., and an adviser to crime laboratories, said DNA demographics reflected the criminal population. Even if an innocent man’s DNA was included in a genetic database, he said, it would come to nothing without a crime scene sample to match it. “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear,” he said

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/19DNA.html?_r=1

[Bruce FLinch]

Not yet!!!

[glocknut]

Upon conviction perhaps...but upon arrest? NO!

This reminds me of a movie about communist east germany were the stazi? collected smell samples of every citizen and stored them in jars for later use. Hard to believe that we are actually moving in the direction of the former communitst east german governmental model...but it seems we are.

mike
gn

[jacksonco]

I kinda doubt it. But I see one day in the future whan they will probably have everyones. It would not be too bad if it was limited to identifying or eliminating criminal suspects or to be used to identify remains. But I would be afraid that its use would far exceed that and would eventually be used to screen to eliminate people from being medically insured and probably a host of other things that I am unaware of. I sure it would be abused.

[berto64]

I wouldn't doubt it that they have mine.

I've been a VA patient for over 35 yrs and they've collected gallons of my blood over time.

Did I ever tell you folks that I don't really trust my government?

[carver]

They ain't got my DNA yet, but they know everything else about me!

[Mosin_Nagant_Fan]

Unless they've been in the sewers, collecting....stuff, or went to my local doctor, not from me.

[GMFWoodchuck]

Not yet. Not surprised though at this development. What else could we expect from a government whose leader had a crowd chanting for him like he was Hitler at his acceptance speech?

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by berto64

I wouldn't doubt it that they have mine.

I've been a VA patient for over 35 yrs and they've collected gallons of my blood over time.

Did I ever tell you folks that I don't really trust my government?

I don't trust the gov't either. I'm pretty sure they have mine. They didn't need to take as much blood from us as they did when I went to BMT They have my fingerprints, too.

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by jacksonco

I kinda doubt it. But I see one day in the future whan they will probably have everyones. It would not be too bad if it was limited to identifying or eliminating criminal suspects or to be used to identify remains.

+1 DNA isn't one of those things that gets botched, it's only going to protect the innocent. Though I would echo the same concerns Jackson hilighted.

[dbrodin]

DNA, no. File on me yes, the Secret Service started one in the 1980's. Didn't get my finger prints until this year when I had do get port security clearance or give up several of my biggest customers.

Dale

[Teejay9]

Well, I had to give a swab while being diagnosed with a certain illness, so who knows. I'm not afraid of being genetically identified, though I'd rather not be in ANY data base. I guess it's far too late to fret over it. TJ

[RunningOnMT]

Not yet as far as i know but I'd gladly spit on a few politicians so they can get a sample if they want one.

[BobMcG]

Maybe there's a way we all could help out and speed up the process... Eureka! There might just be a way! Everyone in the country should send the DC headquarters (yes, bombard them with) a baggie filled with their morning BM. They'd have their hands filled (literally I would hope) with all the DNA samples they could ever hope for.

[Trouble 45-70]

It would apply to anyone except someone infected with AIDS ar hepatitus C. Barney will see to that.

[Trouble 45-70]

I doubt that they have my DNA yet and I am still too polite to spit on any of them so far. Too late for my 4 sons. They are in the military. Realy need to be on record. Might be the only way to identify them if they are captured by any peaceful Islamists. It would be nice if these DNA records were deleted when they retire. That will never happen with this bunch we have in Congress.

[Marlin T]

Trouble, this is a little off topic but here it goes.

If any of your boys needs mental health help with things like PTSD, make sure to get that help from somewhere besides the military.

If they don’t do that, there is a good chance that their names will go on the FBI’s can not buy a firearms list.

[XShooter]

Yes they do. It was the first thing they did when I got my last military physical exam.

[piglatinhater]

They def have mine. Its scary what they can do. phonetrace.org can track any cell phone. We live in WAAAY scary days.

[XShooter]

Originally Posted by piglatinhater

They def have mine. Its scary what they can do. phonetrace.org can track any cell phone. We live in WAAAY scary days.

I heard phonetrace.org was a gag site that showed dirty pictures. Anyway, I was told that this is the best one for tracking a cell phone:

http://www.satellite-gps-locator.com/

[berto64]

Marlin T.....

I'm 100% ptsd disabled and have been for lotsa years and have had several scraps with LEOs over the years. However none were concerning a firearm. I have held CCW' in two states, Originally in Arizona and now in Idaho.

Just use your brains when filling out the paperwork.

Answer the questions factually with a Yes or No, not with a 'What if?' or "how about this or that?'

If a court or a Judge has not said you may not purchase a firearm or ammunition then take it as a given and quit worrying.

[Marlin T]

Berto, may I refer you to HB 2640 to refresh your memory.

H.R.2640
Title: To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 6/11/2007) Cosponsors (17)
Related Bills: H.R.297
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 110-180 [GPO: Text, PDF]

Because today you can buy a weapon, doesn’t mean that when your medical records finally hit the FBI, you’ll be able to buy them tomorrow.

[user]

Originally Posted by Bruce FLinch

Not yet!!!

Hah! Do you suppose there's a reason why the USPS has gone back to selling envelopes you have to lick to seal rather than the self-adhesive kind? Every time you lick an envelope, you're providing a sample of your DNA.

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by Marlin T

Trouble, this is a little off topic but here it goes.

If any of your boys needs mental health help with things like PTSD, make sure to get that help from somewhere besides the military.

If they don’t do that, there is a good chance that their names will go on the FBI’s can not buy a firearms list.

The problem is they are proposing as a way to lower health care costs a paperwork reduction act for the health industry that would basically put everyones health records on line for anyone to access. In fact there already is a database like this that many insurance companies use. So going outside the military or VA wont really help.