Over the past several years, we’ve heard about DNA databases designed to keep tabs on convicted criminals. These databases are designed to catalog the identifying information to potentially help solve future crimes. But some in the criminal justice world think that the same sort of cataloging should be done on police officers. Understandably, many officers object.
In 2009, Connecticut State Police tried to get a law passed that required that state’s law enforcement personnel to submit to DNA testing as a condition of employment. The law failed. But in New Orleans, officers willingly gave up samples when there was a killer on the loose and some suspected a law enforcement connection. Now there is a law on the books there, one that requires DNA for all new officers. So far, it’s the only law of its kind in the nation.
The concern with police DNA is that any bit of DNA information can contaminate a crime scene. If a patrol officer sneezes while walking through a scene, they spew their identifying information throughout the room, making it difficult to know what DNA comes from a suspect and what is from someone else.
In both Australia and the United Kingdom, police have been required to submit to DNA testing for years. According to the Associated Press, it has taken longer in the U.S., in part, because of union power. Interestingly, however, the U.K. had the first criminal DNA database and the U.S. followed suit. Now, the United States has the largest criminal DNA database in the world, with 10 million profiles.
Some officers are concerned about their privacy or that the departments may look into their DNA to see things like future potential health problems and similar concerns. But officials say their desire to collect samples is purely in the name of crime scene integrity.
One case, which involved murders in Germany, France, and Austria, the same DNA was found at about 40 murder scenes. The DNA belonged to someone officials dubbed the “phantom killer”. But years later it was discovered there was no phantom killer and the DNA actually came from a worker at the plant that made the cotton swabs used in crime scene processing.
There’s kind of a futuristic Big Brother-esque concern about the government or officials storing the DNA of innocent people. But when asked why this makes us nervous, it’s difficult to put a finger on exactly what it is we are afraid of. The closest explanation seems to be that it’s an invasion of privacy, with the DNA of our bodies containing too much information, information we wouldn’t likely want to share with strangers or our employers.
One trooper opposed to the collection says, “If we’re just having a philosophical discussion about solving crimes and collecting DNA, why not collect DNA from everybody when they’re born?”
When it comes to criminal acts, DNA simply isn’t available in every case and it often isn’t used when there is enough other evidence to build a case. The role of evidence in a criminal case is crucial but can be confusing. If you are facing criminal charges and have questions about the evidence against you, let us put you in touch with a local criminal defense attorney today.
About David Matson