DNA Will Eventually Be Public Domain

I must admit, I’m torn by this.

When a 60-year-old man spat on the sidewalk, his DNA became as public as if he had been advertising it across his chest.

Police officers secretly following Leon Chatt last August collected the saliva — loaded with Chatt’s unique genetic makeup — to compare with DNA evidence from the scene of an old murder they believed he’d committed.

On Feb. 1, Chatt was charged in one of Buffalo’s oldest unsolved cases, the 1974 rape and stabbing of his wife’s stepsister, Barbara Lloyd.

While secretly collecting a suspect’s DNA may be an unorthodox approach to solving crimes, prosecutors say it crosses no legal boundaries — that when someone leaves their DNA in a public place via flakes of skin, strands of hair or saliva, for example, they give up any expectation of privacy.

The important thing is to not to judge the process by the results.  It’s a good thing that they caught this guy.  But does that make the process by which they got him acceptable?  Consider that as technology progresses, we will be able to extract DNA from smaller and smaller samples.  At some point, we may be able to do it from a single cell.  We all leave dead skin cells all over the place.  When the technology reaches that point, if we have allowed this kind of police work, it will be impossible to ever keep your DNA away from the police. 

And at what point does DNA come under the 5th Amendment?  If my DNA can implicate me in a crime, don’t I have a right to keep my DNA to myself? 

Like I said, I’m torn. 

1. This is already settled case law.  In that matter, the suspect tossed away a cigarette, the cop or FBI agent scooped it up and DNA testing of that DNA was ruled admissible by the USSSC.

   There was another case I remember more vaguely where the suspect refused to yield to a cheek swab and the courts eventually ruled that he had no right not to cooperate in a criminal investigation.

   If this means that the loony is Left is correct in calling us a fascist state, then at least they have some evidence this time for the claim.

   But I’m not sweating a police state over sampling discarded saliva.

   Posted by on March 18, 2007 at 1515 hrs




2. Don’t forget the first element here:  the cops had good reason to believe that the goblin was dirty.

   Unlike YOU, O., pure as the driven snow…

   Posted by dad29 on March 18, 2007 at 1601 hrs




3. They key will be the legaility of how it is searched for and collected. Your home or work is likely where most of your dead skin cells will end up. Presumably police etc would still need a search warrant for these two locations. Or any building.

   It is when the abuse of this trust of the search and seizure laws take place - as i would say is starting to erode before our eyes now - where the breakdown takes place.

   My objection to this type of thing rises when the person, me you, is inconvenienced by having to show up somewhere to take an active role in an investigation that me, you have nothing to do with.

   I would also be slightly concerned how this DNA evidence is handled and where it goes. Once collected can it last in perpetuaty and sent to other labs whenever any crime comes up. Even then, it doesn’t seem so bad. There is the remote possibility in such a public place that my, your DNA happens to be at a scene - spitting being the perfect example (though if you do it oftne you deserve whatever you get /jk).

   And if they have your DNA from some other investigation to compare - boom, out go the lights.

   Posted by Temple Stark on March 18, 2007 at 1645 hrs




4. I would equate DNA with FINGER PRINTS.  If the DNA is found, or collected under search warrant or by court order,it belongs to the Police.  You discard a gun or knife and your finger prints are extracted from it, It is evidence, not your possession.  If you spit on the sidewalk, drop a ciggy but or leave your blood behind.  You are not incrmiinating yourself, rather the DNA is incriminating you.  The DNA is NOT YOU, it WAS you.

   Posted by mickey on March 18, 2007 at 1735 hrs




5. The DNA is NOT YOU, it WAS you.

   Why it’s elementary Watson!

   Welcome mickey

   Posted by on March 18, 2007 at 1741 hrs




6. Hey Pjr, hope you’re having a good weekend.
   Please don’t be confused by logic.  It is your friend.  Or at least it can be.

   Posted by mickey on March 18, 2007 at 1749 hrs




7. Kind of Big Brotherish, and I haven’t really thought about it much. My better half does have an opinion and she sees it as a clear cut tool to reducing crime. I can’t diminish her thought process. It is well thought out and nuanced to every degree. As usual she outdoes the doltish male of the species.
   I’m inclined however, as a former member of the Armed Services whose DNA has been on record for the past ten years, to side with law enforcement. If you have nothing to hide it should be of no consequence. But I will think more deeply about it now. Thanks Owen.

   Posted by on March 19, 2007 at 0109 hrs




8. As far as concern for the police state, my bigger concern is corporations having access to the information. As scientists continue to map the genome, it is likely that they will find more correlations between gene sequences and behavioral tendencies.

   I am less worried about DNA being used as an identifier as I am about it being used as a PREDICTOR, which is right around the corner.

   When insurance companies start refusing to insure people because they have genetic risk factors, when low income men and women with good genes start being employed as “breeders” and when genetic information becomes linked to the likelyhood of committing certain crimes (child molestation will be first, i wager) then we will be entering the brave new world.

   Posted by on March 19, 2007 at 1613 hrs