Tracing a Crime Suspect Through a Relative's DNA

Over nearly two decades, a serial killer has shot and strangled at least 11 people, often dumping their battered bodies in alleyways of Inglewood and Los Angeles. Police have determined through DNA and other evidence that the killings were the work of a single person. But the DNA does not match any of the millions of genetic profiles of convicted criminals in law enforcement databases, and detectives have few other clues.

Now Los Angeles Police Department investigators want to search the state's DNA database again -- not for exact matches but for any profiles similar enough to belong to a parent or sibling. The hope is that one of those family members might lead detectives to the killer.

You can read more about this in the Los Angeles Times' web site at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-familial25-2008nov25,0,939345.story.

Is this an invasion of privacy? Should your DNA be used without your permission to identify a close relative who is a criminal? Privacy advocates and legal experts are nervous.

My thanks to Walter Wood for telling me about this story.

Comments

[Marilyn]

I knew it would come to this . . . Soon there will be a Department of Homeland Security, DNA Division if there is not one already. "For Your Own Good"

[Jackie]

If it saves lives then why not for goodness sakes.

[Jacqui from UK]

Maybe if I trusted police and other authorities to keep my info safe and not lose it, or to know enough about DNA research to use it appropriately I would say yes but I don't.

But then again I never trusted banks either.

[Carlos]

I would rather they used my DNA to identify a criminal in the family than to have some other family's DNA analyzed to identify a dead child.

Besides, cops already scour genealogy websites when they are looking for a fugitive. If you can identify who the bad guy's grandma is or who his cousins are, you have more places to go look for him.

[Eileen Souza]

I am not an advocate of anything that infringes on individual rights. That said, collecting DNA for identification purposes of the individual is no different than fingerprints, so this right has already been infringed.

In this case, though, they wish to infringe upon the rights of related, near-related or not-related innocent individuals to find a needle in a haystack, so I am definitely against it. It is sad that there is a serial killer at large but risk is a by-product of freedom.

[Marilyn]

Cool. I can hardly wait for Law & Order's version of the story.

[Panda]

This was the way the BTK killer was caught in Wichita, the police asked the daughter of the suspect for her DNA. See the article at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/25/national/main676663.shtml or google other stories on your own. Evidently the daughter willingly gave a sample of her own DNA to authories.

With that being said, I trust my governmental employees about as far as I can throw a bull by his eyelashes.

[G. Marie]

How ever much one may wish a vicious criminal apprehended, wideranging incursion into DNA information from the general public is
1)"a clear and present danger" to our right to personal privacy;
2) a violation of the constitutional prohibition of "self incrimination" from fortuitious similarities that may arise spontaneously or from unknown common ancestors many centuries ago; &
3) another open invitation to government abuse that history shows is all too irresistable. And all this based on - at best - as yet unproven science. The risks to individual rights and to constitutional princpals are too great to allow such clandestine incursions.

[Randy]

The DNA that they want to be looking through is already in the database due to collection upon arrest or conviction, which the courts have said is legitimate. Matching the DNA is just a clue to the identity of the killer - they still have to identify the correct person through interviews and matching to other evidence. That said, they need to remember that Sally Hemmings' descendents were matched to Thomas Jefferson OR ONE OF HIS CLOSE RELATIVES (father, brother, nephews) who also had the same DNA profile and "opportunity".

I don't think it is a violation of privacy to use already collected or voluntarily provided DNA to establish identity, but the bigger problem would be discrimation based on your genetic profile (disease or other "imperfections" like in the movie "Gattaca").

Personally, I think a bigger invasion of privacy is finding that your non-Mormon parents have been "sealed" without your knowledge or permission.

[kathy]

If using DNA will put more of these animals in prison then I say go for it. As a parent I would want every possible stone uprooted to find the devil if my son was kidnapped or murdered. As long as a proper procedure is set in place that states that the only thing that can be disclosed is the relationship to a criminal and that nothing else can be used for any other purpose have it written and passed into law by your country's government and that will protect the innocent.
The larger number of these creeps that are in jails will make our children safer and inmates really don't like people who harm children so they have their own justice system

[Timothy Eastman]

If you are not a criminal (or plan on committing a crime) then you have no viable reason to be against it. [He who balks the loudest has the most to hide.]
I agree that there are people in governmets and other positions of authority that would use such and related info for nefarious purposes. My trust in those in the gov't is not very high, but I do believe in a national DNA database. I also believe in an entity (with much oversight by civilian groups, such as the ACLU) to have a complete DNA profile on ALL people. Eventually this WILL become a reality.
DNA testing is faster now and soon they will have a non-invasive scanning device that will identify a persons DNA at a distance. One day they will have an orbital device that can pin-point your location by scanning the earth for your DNA.
It is not a matter of IF, but of WHEN. The military and other gov't agencies routinely employ so-called illegal means all the time to 'get the job done.' The only real concern of your DNA is that some entity will use it as a base for cloning.

[Glenda]

A suspect who has had Reno, NV on edge for over a year was arrested yesterday for the rape and murder of a 19-year-old coed and the kidnappng and rape of another young girl. DNA was provided by his young son which led to the arrest. You can read the stories at www.rgj.com.

[Harold McClendon]

Many of the comments on this issue seem to feel that the police do not make mistakes and can be fully trusted. I am unable to share this point of view. The police and their laboratories seem to make too many mistakes even though they try very hard to find the criminal,. I still remember the point that the FBI made when they were investigating the bombing in Atlanta at the Olympics. They said they do not have to tell the truth when they attempted to explain their interrogation of the suspects who later proved to be innocent but their lives were destroyed because they were investigated by the FBI. I gave my DNA with the assurance that it would remain private. I have encouraged several hundred individuals to give their DNA. The thought that the police would declare me, my family or my friends a suspect in a crime because our DNA matched to some degree the DNA in a crime makes me very nervous. How do you think some of your neighbors and friends will feel when they learn that your DNA is similar to that of a serious criminal and you are being investigated? Is it possible that an individual will be fired because of the DNA match? Would you want an individual working for you who might, just might, be a serious criminal? What if after examining the DNA data and identifying a possible match of a profile, the police are unable to identify the actual criminal. How do you think the public will treat those individuals whose DNA profile sort of matched the criminals?

[Marilyn]

In a few years, when we are all lined up to give DNA and get our numbers tattooed into our foreheads or on our hands, we will call these the good old days. The mini-transmitters implanted under our skin will have all our personal information readily available for scanning and we will just pass our hand over a scanner at the supermarket to pay for our goods. The sensors at the doors will note when we came in and when we left and what we bought. Some will wonder how we lost all our personal freedom. Others will fight it, all the while knowing the inevitable. Call me a crank--I don't care--but I will be one of the fighters.