Marcia J. Weiss
Abstract
Technology has provided state and federal governments with huge collections of DNA samples and identifying profiles stored in databanks. That information can be used to solve crimes by matching samples from convicted felons to unsolved crimes, and has aided law enforcement in investigating and convicting suspects, and exonerating innocent felons, even after lengthy incarceration. Rights surrounding the provision of DNA samples, however, remain unclear in light of the constitutional guarantee against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and privacy concerns. The courts have just begun to consider this issue, and have provided little guidance. It is unclear whether the laws governing protected health information are applicable to the instant situation, and if so, the degree to which they apply. DNA databanks are not uniformly regulated, and it is possible that DNA samples contained in them may be used for purposes unintended by donors of the samples. As people live their lives, they leave bits of their DNA behind. They cannot be assured that these tiny specimens will not be taken or used against their will or without their knowledge for activities such as profiling to measure tendencies such as thrill-seeking, aggressiveness, or crimes with threatening behavior. Existing racial or ethnic discrimination and profiling may also encompass genetic discrimination and profiling, creating societal class distinctions. This article will explore the constitutionality of collecting genetic materials, the ethics of such activities, and balance the social good in solving crime and deterrence against the individual's security, liberty, and privacy.
- L.B. Andrews. Gen-Etiquette: Genetic Information, Family Relationships, and Adoption. In M.A. Rothstein, editor, Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era, pp. 255-280. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1997.Google Scholar
- G.J. Annas. DNA Fingerprinting in the Twilight Zone. Hastings Center Report, 20(2): 35-37, 1997.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R.A. Brown. The Law of Property 8. In Walter B. Raushenbush, editor, 3rd ed., 1975.Google Scholar
- R.J. Carlson and G. Stimeling. The Terrible Gift: The Brave New World of Genetic Medicine, p. 211. Public Affairs, New York, 2002.Google Scholar
- J. Dwyer, P. Neufeld and B. Scheck. Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted, p. 262. Doubleday, New York, 2000.Google Scholar
- P. Finkelman. Fugitive Baseballs and Abandoned Property: Who Owns the Home Run Ball? Cardozo Law Review, 23: 1609-1633, 2002.Google Scholar
- C. Goldberg. DNA Databanks Giving Police Powerful Weapon: The Instant Hit. New York Times on the Web, February 19, 1998.Google Scholar
- D. Hamer and P. Copeland. Living with Our Genes: Why They Matter More Than You Think. Doubleday, New York, 1998.Google Scholar
- K.E. Hanna. Senate Passes Genetic Nondiscrimination Bill. Hastings Center Report, 33(6): 8 November-December 2003.Google Scholar
- J.L. Hustead and J. Goldman. Genetics and Privacy. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 28: 285-307, 2000.Google Scholar
- E.J. Imwinkelried and D.H. Kaye. DNA Typing: Emerging or Neglected Issues. Washington Law Review, 76(4): 413- 474, 2001.Google Scholar
- D.H. Kaye. American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics conferences, Controversies in Genetics: Emerging Issues in Genetic Testing, Forensics, and Therapeutics, MA, September 2002.Google Scholar
- J. Kimmelman. The Promise and Perils of Criminal DNA Databanking. Nature, 18(7): 695-696, July 2000.Google Scholar
- J.E. McEwen. DNA Data Banks. In Mark A. Rothstein, editor, Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era, pp. 231-251. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1997.Google Scholar
- J.D. McInerney. Genes and Behavior: A Complex Relationship. Judicature, 83(3): 112-116, November-December 1999.Google Scholar
- D. Nelkin. The Social Power of Genetic Information. In Daniel J. Kevles and Leroy Hood, editors, The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project, pp. 177-190. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
- P.N. Ossorio. Property Rights and Human Bodies. In D. Magnus, A. Caplan and G. McGee, editors, Who Owns Life? pp. 223-242. Prometheus, Amherst, NY, 2002.Google Scholar
- M.A. Rothstein. Genetic Secrets: A Policy Framework. In Mark A. Rothstein, editor, Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era pp. 451- 495. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1997.Google Scholar
- M.A. Rothstein. The Impact of Behavioral Genetics on the Law and the Courts. Judicature, 83(3): 117-123, November-December 1999.Google Scholar
- S.C. Seiden and K. Morin. The Physician as Gatekeeper to the Use of Genetic Information in the Criminal Justice System. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 30: 88-94, 2002.Google Scholar
- W.S. Sessions. DNA Tests Can Free the Innocent. How Can We Ignore That? Washington Post: B02, September 21, 2003.Google Scholar
- J.D. Silver and C. Lash. U. S. targets DNA backlog. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: p. A-1, A-12, March 12, 2003.Google Scholar
- R. Willing. Mismatch Calls DNA Tests into Question. USA Today, February 8, 2000.Google Scholar
- F.M. Zweig, J.T. Walsh and D.M. Freeman. Courts and the Challenges of Adjudicating Genetic Testing's Secrets. In Mark A. Rothstein, editor, Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era, pp. 332- 351. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1997.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Beware! Uncle Sam has Your DNA: Legal Fallout from its Use and Misuse in the U.S.
Recommendations
Privacy issues with DNA databases and retention of individuals' DNA information by law enforcement agencies: the holding of the European Court of Human Rights case S and Marper v. United Kingdom should be adapted to American Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
When law enforcement agencies collect, retain, and use individuals' DNA information in DNA databases for crime prevention purposes the presumption of innocence is reduced for those individuals. Collection and use of DNA information has benefits, greatly ...
Hackers beware: the cautionary story of Gary McKinnon
The law of extradition was changed following the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Subsequent practice has seen the range of extraditable offences expand to include acts not traditionally regarded as terrorist crimes. The case of Gary ...
Is identity theft really theft?
LAW SHAPING TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY SHAPING THE LAWThis article continues the examination of the emergent legal concept of identity now clearly evident in the UK as a result of the Identity Cards Act 2006 (UK) and its consequences. In 'Conceptualising Identity' (International Review of Law, Computers ...
Comments