Los Angeles —
DNA evidence was undeniably the key to the arrest and charging of Lonnie David Franklin Jr., believed to be the Grim Sleeper responsible for a string of slayings in Los Angeles between 1985 and 2007. Many will cite this use of DNA evidence in a high-profile serial murder case as one more reason to increase reliance on this important investigative tool. But in fact it’s precisely at a moment like this when an investigative triumph can blind us to the dangers of expanding genetic surveillance.
There actually were three uses of DNA evidence in the Grim Sleeper investigation that we should be concerned about. They all turn basic assumptions about our criminal justice system on their heads. The first is the use of familial DNA searches. Most of the time, investigators search state DNA databases to find a complete match linking a particular person’s DNA profile to crime scene evidence. Familial matches are different. A “hit” in the database establishes definitively that the person in the database is not the wanted suspect, but suggests that it is one of his or her relatives.
Why is this problematic? Keep in mind that in usual police “searches,” there must be individualized probable cause for suspicion, as required by the 4th Amendment. With familial searches, the only reason the police identify their suspect is because he is genetically related to someone in a DNA database. If that sounds like guilt by association, it is. Why should the mere inclusion of one of your family members in a DNA database mean that you might be a target of an investigation one day?
The second investigative technique used in the Grim Sleeper investigation was the use of “abandoned” or “discarded” DNA. We all leave DNA on used coffee cups, smoked cigarettes and many other items on a daily basis. After the police turned their focus to Franklin, undercover police followed him until he left some of his DNA on a piece of pizza as well as silverware and a glass after a meal out.
Few rules govern the circumstances in which police can collect this involuntarily shed DNA. Police typically defend the practice by saying it produces results. Of course, when successful matches are found, the unrestrained collection of abandoned DNA sounds defensible. But what about all of the hunches that police might like to pursue in this way? Have we all silently consented to giving up our discarded DNA to the police?
The third use of DNA in the investigation is unlikely to receive much fanfare; it wasn’t successful. Yet it is equally dangerous to civil liberties. Two years ago, LAPD vice officers arrested a number of suspected johns not as part of a crackdown on prostitution but rather for the purpose of collecting their DNA. (Many of the Grim Sleeper’s victims were prostitutes.) Such a technique is known as a DNA dragnet. As of January 2009, Proposition 69 allows the state to collect DNA not just from those convicted of felonies but also from all people who have simply been arrested on suspicion of committing felonies. Attorney General Jerry Brown’s formal approval of familial searches is still limited to searching profiles of convicted felons in special cases, but it’s not hard to imagine an expansion to all cases regardless of severity, and to arrestee profiles as well.
There’s no doubt that DNA evidence gives the police an important tool. Without it, the Grim Sleeper case probably would be yet another unsolved case. The trouble is that we are rushing forward with these uses of DNA evidence with little consideration of the ever-increasing scope of genetic surveillance over our citizens. Many states that have not formalized their policies in these areas have taken note of what the police did in this case. What matters isn’t just that this particular fish was caught; it’s the ever-widening net over us.
ELIZABETH JOH, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law, has written widely about DNA evidence, undercover policing and police privatization. She wrote this for the Los Angeles Times. This column was distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Opinion
The Grim Sleeper and DNA: There’s much to be concerned about
- Opinion
-
- LETTER: Reader says Duncan’s career training makes her uniquely qualified for school board
-
OTHER VIEW EDITORIAL: Stillwater NewsPress: Committee right to reject tax proposal
Oklahoma’s Senate Finance Committee was right Tuesday to reject a proposal to tax newspapers and magazines.
-
LETTER: Supporter calls Duncan caring, interactive
To the Editor:
In my 43-year career as a professor at the University of Central Oklahoma I wrote many a letter of recommendation for deserving students for jobs, graduate and professional schools and scholarships. Those letters are read by busy people who have important decisions to contemplate and my belief is they ought to be brief and on point. This is such a letter. -
LETTER: Supporter applauds Duncan’s persistent dedication
To the Editor:
I am writing this letter to support and endorse the re-election of Kathleen Duncan to the Edmond Board of Education next Tuesday. I’ve been an Edmond resident for the past 20 years, and because I don’t live in District 2, I cannot cast my vote for Duncan, but I do pay a considerable amount in taxes to the Edmond Public School District. -
LETTER: Duncan lends watchful eye to school district
To the Editor:
Kathleen Duncan serves tirelessly in her capacity as an Edmond Board of Education member. A former teacher, school counselor and Oklahoma County Assistant District Attorney, she has the time to go into our schools and hear the needs of teachers, students and staff. When she hears of needs, she has the time and experience to share those issues with the appropriate administrators for investigation and resolution. -
Digital Learning Day offers opportunities
Want to be able to analyze a document from 1616 that relates Shakespeare’s Romeo to contemporary adolescent males? There’s a lesson for that at http://oeta.pbslearningmedia.org/ under health and physical education. Need to brush up on polygons? Go to www.sascurriculumpathways.com and subscribe for this or thousands of other free lessons.
-
LETTER: Supporter: Detail-oriented Duncan saves district dollars
To the Editor:
Voting is usually not the first thing one plans to do on Feb. 14, but unless the Edmond voters west of Kelly and north of 15th (Northwest 164th), turn out in solid support of Kathleen Duncan, they risk losing the best school board member they’ve ever had. This would have a negative impact on all Edmond taxpayers, schools, teachers, parents and students. -
LETTER: Resident says board member’s actions risky
To the Editor:
It’s time for a change on the Edmond Board of Education. Edmond Public Schools Board of Education has shown signs of stress this past year as a result of strained communication between the board and the administration. -
LETTERS: Supporter says Duncan is ‘parent’s voice’ on board
To the Editor:
I want to encourage Edmond voters in District 2 to re-elect Kathleen Duncan to another term on the Edmond school board. -
Open records bill for Legislature picks up momentum
Last Thursday, Speaker of the House Kris Steele publicly announced his support of the proposal to apply open records and meetings laws to the Oklahoma Legislature.
In Oklahoma, with the exception of the Legislature, government entities must follow a set of laws designed to ensure public access to the proceedings of government. This is one of our most important statutes because it helps to ensure your right to know how your taxpayer dollars are being spent. - More Opinion Headlines
