Aa
It's Your DNA...Or Is It?
On a crisp Saturday in March 2009, Lily Haskell set out to join a peace rally in San Francisco to oppose the Iraq war. What she didn't know at the time was that by the end of the day, she would be forced to turn a DNA sample over to be placed in a national databank.
During the demonstration, Haskell was arrested on suspicion of trying to help another protester held by police—a felony. She was held for several hours in a San Francisco jail. Though not formally charged with any crime, Haskell was told that she must provide a DNA sample. Alarmed, she asked to speak with an attorney but was informed that refusing to give a sample would result in an automatic misdemeanor charge. She consented.
"Now my genetic information is stored indefinitely in a government database, simply because I was exercising my right to speak out," Haskell said.
Haskell was later released, and no charges were filed against her.
Haskell is now the lead plaintiff in the ACLU-NC's class action lawsuit seeking to stop California's policy of mandating that DNA be collected from anyone arrested for a felony, whether or not they are charged or convicted. The suit, Haskell v. Brown, was filed in federal court in October 2009. The mandatory DNA collection policy is a result of Proposition 69, which was enacted by California voters in 2004 and went into effect on Jan. 1, 2009.
Under the new law, anyone arrested for a felony must provide a DNA sample that is then stored in a criminal database accessible to local, state, national, and international law enforcement agencies. The requirement can be applied to victims of domestic violence who are arrested after defending themselves as well as to individuals who have committed non-violent offenses like writing a bad check and to people who are wrongfully arrested.
In the lawsuit, the ACLU-NC is arguing that the law violates constitutional guarantees of privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
"Forcing a person to provide a DNA sample without any judicial oversight violates the constitution," said Michael Risher, ACLU-NC staff attorney. "The result of this new program is that thousands of innocent Californians will be subject to a lifetime of genetic surveillance because a single police officer suspected them of a crime."
The chilling implications for free speech are of great concern.
Aakash Desai, a UC Berkeley graduate student in environmental engineering, participated in one of the recent large demonstrations against university fee hikes and custodial layoffs. He was arrested and taken to the Berkeley city jail, where he was told he was being charged with felony burglary. Like Haskell, Desai learned that refusal to provide a DNA sample is itself a misdemeanor and would result in a higher bail amount. He relented and swabbed the inside of his cheek seven times, as the law mandates.
"I felt like I was being burglarized," Desai noted in a declaration to the Court. "Each swab was like being coerced into giving up part of my being."
People like Haskell and Desai who are innocent and were not even charged with a crime can seek to have their DNA sample expunged from the state database, but the process is cumbersome.
When another plaintiff, Jeffrey Patrick Lyons, contacted the San Francisco District Attorney's office seeking information about how to have his DNA removed from the database, he was told that he would have to file a motion and to consult with a lawyer. Because Lyons had been represented by a court-appointed lawyer, he was not sure where to turn next. Like Haskell and Desai, Lyons had been arrested at a political demonstration. His case was dismissed.
"Automatically collecting DNA from people who are merely arrested ignores the presumption of innocence. It blurs the line between being suspected of a crime and being convicted," Risher added.
The ACLU-NC's lawsuit also points to the huge racial impact of the mandatory DNA collection law. People of color are already disproportionately represented in California's criminal justice system. Racial profiling and heavy police presence in neighborhoods that are predominantly made up of people of color are likely to exacerbate the problem.
The United Kingdom's broad national DNA database has already been found to have significant racial disparities. The organizations GeneWatch UK and Oakland- based Generations Ahead report stark figures: that country's DNA database contains records on 27 percent of the black population but just 6 percent of the white population. In late November 2009, the BBC reported on a former UK police chief who testified that police officers in England and Wales had made arrests just to get people into the DNA database.
Data from the California Department of Justice reveal that nearly one-third of the hundreds of thousands of arrests every year in California on suspicion of a felony never result in a conviction. A disproportionate number of these arrestees are people of color.
Meanwhile, California's huge forensic DNA database—the third largest in the world—already faces tremendous backlogs. The resources spent collecting thousands upon thousands of DNA samples from arrestees consume resources that could instead be devoted to processing crime-scene samples to help solve violent and serious crimes like rape, assault, and murder.
Update at press time:
Shortly after filing this lawsuit, the ACLU-NC asked the court for a preliminary injunction to stop the state from collecting DNA from people who have merely been arrested. That motion was heard on Dec. 4, 2009. In a disappointing ruling on Dec. 23, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer denied ACLU's request for a preliminary injunction. The ACLU-NC filed an appeal of the denial of the preliminary injunction. On Jan. 29, the court certified the case as a class action, and denied the government's motion to dismiss the case. The lawsuit and advocacy for genetic justice continues.
Rebecca Farmer is the Media Relations Director at the ACLU of Northern California.
https://www.aclunc.org/issues/criminal_justice/it's_your_dna...or_is_it_aclu_suit_aims_to_keep_your_genetic_blueprint_out_of_the_government's_hands.shtml
During the demonstration, Haskell was arrested on suspicion of trying to help another protester held by police—a felony. She was held for several hours in a San Francisco jail. Though not formally charged with any crime, Haskell was told that she must provide a DNA sample. Alarmed, she asked to speak with an attorney but was informed that refusing to give a sample would result in an automatic misdemeanor charge. She consented.
"Now my genetic information is stored indefinitely in a government database, simply because I was exercising my right to speak out," Haskell said.
Haskell was later released, and no charges were filed against her.
Haskell is now the lead plaintiff in the ACLU-NC's class action lawsuit seeking to stop California's policy of mandating that DNA be collected from anyone arrested for a felony, whether or not they are charged or convicted. The suit, Haskell v. Brown, was filed in federal court in October 2009. The mandatory DNA collection policy is a result of Proposition 69, which was enacted by California voters in 2004 and went into effect on Jan. 1, 2009.
Under the new law, anyone arrested for a felony must provide a DNA sample that is then stored in a criminal database accessible to local, state, national, and international law enforcement agencies. The requirement can be applied to victims of domestic violence who are arrested after defending themselves as well as to individuals who have committed non-violent offenses like writing a bad check and to people who are wrongfully arrested.
In the lawsuit, the ACLU-NC is arguing that the law violates constitutional guarantees of privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
"Forcing a person to provide a DNA sample without any judicial oversight violates the constitution," said Michael Risher, ACLU-NC staff attorney. "The result of this new program is that thousands of innocent Californians will be subject to a lifetime of genetic surveillance because a single police officer suspected them of a crime."
The chilling implications for free speech are of great concern.
Aakash Desai, a UC Berkeley graduate student in environmental engineering, participated in one of the recent large demonstrations against university fee hikes and custodial layoffs. He was arrested and taken to the Berkeley city jail, where he was told he was being charged with felony burglary. Like Haskell, Desai learned that refusal to provide a DNA sample is itself a misdemeanor and would result in a higher bail amount. He relented and swabbed the inside of his cheek seven times, as the law mandates.
"I felt like I was being burglarized," Desai noted in a declaration to the Court. "Each swab was like being coerced into giving up part of my being."
People like Haskell and Desai who are innocent and were not even charged with a crime can seek to have their DNA sample expunged from the state database, but the process is cumbersome.
When another plaintiff, Jeffrey Patrick Lyons, contacted the San Francisco District Attorney's office seeking information about how to have his DNA removed from the database, he was told that he would have to file a motion and to consult with a lawyer. Because Lyons had been represented by a court-appointed lawyer, he was not sure where to turn next. Like Haskell and Desai, Lyons had been arrested at a political demonstration. His case was dismissed.
"Automatically collecting DNA from people who are merely arrested ignores the presumption of innocence. It blurs the line between being suspected of a crime and being convicted," Risher added.
The ACLU-NC's lawsuit also points to the huge racial impact of the mandatory DNA collection law. People of color are already disproportionately represented in California's criminal justice system. Racial profiling and heavy police presence in neighborhoods that are predominantly made up of people of color are likely to exacerbate the problem.
The United Kingdom's broad national DNA database has already been found to have significant racial disparities. The organizations GeneWatch UK and Oakland- based Generations Ahead report stark figures: that country's DNA database contains records on 27 percent of the black population but just 6 percent of the white population. In late November 2009, the BBC reported on a former UK police chief who testified that police officers in England and Wales had made arrests just to get people into the DNA database.
Data from the California Department of Justice reveal that nearly one-third of the hundreds of thousands of arrests every year in California on suspicion of a felony never result in a conviction. A disproportionate number of these arrestees are people of color.
Meanwhile, California's huge forensic DNA database—the third largest in the world—already faces tremendous backlogs. The resources spent collecting thousands upon thousands of DNA samples from arrestees consume resources that could instead be devoted to processing crime-scene samples to help solve violent and serious crimes like rape, assault, and murder.
Update at press time:
Shortly after filing this lawsuit, the ACLU-NC asked the court for a preliminary injunction to stop the state from collecting DNA from people who have merely been arrested. That motion was heard on Dec. 4, 2009. In a disappointing ruling on Dec. 23, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer denied ACLU's request for a preliminary injunction. The ACLU-NC filed an appeal of the denial of the preliminary injunction. On Jan. 29, the court certified the case as a class action, and denied the government's motion to dismiss the case. The lawsuit and advocacy for genetic justice continues.
Rebecca Farmer is the Media Relations Director at the ACLU of Northern California.
https://www.aclunc.org/issues/criminal_justice/it's_your_dna...or_is_it_aclu_suit_aims_to_keep_your_genetic_blueprint_out_of_the_government's_hands.shtml
I don't know if I have a problem with my DNA on file or not. Being arrested is one thing... being detained or held is another. Even then, being arrested on a non violent offense and having to give a DNA sample seems like a bit much. Finger prints and a mugshot I understand, but DNA?
On the other hand, like el pointed out.... I'd probably appreciate the fact of having a sample on file to be exonerated from a crime that I was in the vacinity of. Then again, if I was at the scene of a crime and was somehow implicated, I'd have to provide a sample anyhow.... Right, wrong or indifferent, they'd now have a sample.
On the other hand, like el pointed out.... I'd probably appreciate the fact of having a sample on file to be exonerated from a crime that I was in the vacinity of. Then again, if I was at the scene of a crime and was somehow implicated, I'd have to provide a sample anyhow.... Right, wrong or indifferent, they'd now have a sample.
ACLU will find anything to sue about.
I have ZERO problem with the government having my DNA on file, stored in a database somewhere.
Then, when a crime is committed somewhere, and I just happen to be in the area the crime was committed, I can be exonerated (due to comparative DNA analysis).
Not sure what the big deal is (although I'm sure I'm about to hear about how it's an invasion of privacy, or something like that).
I'll tell you what... our gov't is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation here.
On the one side, it's necessary to have such a database, so that the gov't/state can perform comparative analysis, and the right folks behind bars.
On the other side, people feel it's an invasion of their privacy and an "illegal search & seizure" situation (but will be the FIRST people to damn the state/gov't when a crime is perpetrated, and a criminal goes free due to lack of a comparative DNA sample).
Is it THAT big a deal to have a swab of your DNA stored in a tank someplace? Does it really hurt you to have the swab taken?
If you're not doing anything wrong...
Then, when a crime is committed somewhere, and I just happen to be in the area the crime was committed, I can be exonerated (due to comparative DNA analysis).
Not sure what the big deal is (although I'm sure I'm about to hear about how it's an invasion of privacy, or something like that).
I'll tell you what... our gov't is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation here.
On the one side, it's necessary to have such a database, so that the gov't/state can perform comparative analysis, and the right folks behind bars.
On the other side, people feel it's an invasion of their privacy and an "illegal search & seizure" situation (but will be the FIRST people to damn the state/gov't when a crime is perpetrated, and a criminal goes free due to lack of a comparative DNA sample).
Is it THAT big a deal to have a swab of your DNA stored in a tank someplace? Does it really hurt you to have the swab taken?
If you're not doing anything wrong...
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
