A 2005 Chicago study followed eight repeat off enders through the
system and found high
rates of recidivism. The study’s conclusion: “60 violent crimes, including 53 murders and rapes . . . could have been prevented if DNA had been treated as ‘the fi ngerprint of the 21st century.’”
But rapid DNA, also known as
R-DNA, may never enter widespread use if civil libertarians prevail. They maintain taking a swab of some- one’s cheek amounts to unreasonable search and seizure, and say it is far more invasive than the routine prac- tice of taking fi ngerprints. This summer, the Supreme Court
is expected to issue a major ruling in Maryland v. King, which may well determine whether a defendant’s expectation of privacy will trump get- ting criminals off the streets. What’s more, current DNA analy-
ses are accepted only from accredited labs — it’s unclear if that will extend to police technicians operating in station houses or in the fi eld. Advocates say DNA identifi cation
should be routinely conducted as part of the booking process, much as fi n- gerprints are today. Doing so, they say, could save thousands of lives. Leo McGuire, former sheriff of Ber-
gen County, N.J., says rapid DNA is “a tool that can make law enforcement more effi cient and more eff ective.” He adds that DNA can be instrumental in proving innocence, as well as guilt. In fact, according to the Innocence
Project, “There have been 303 post- conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.” They add that 18 of the individuals exonerated had been on death row. Using DNA immediately would rule out suspects, avoiding the risk of wrongful convictions that can take months or years to overturn. Bruce Budowle, a former senior
scientist with the FBI and director of the Institute of Applied Genetics
Using DNA
immediately would rule
out suspects,
avoiding the risk of wrongful convictions that can take months or years to overturn.
at the University of North Texas Sci- ence Center in Fort Worth, says the simple action of rubbing a sterile cot- ton-tipped swab inside an individual’s mouth, then immediately completing a DNA test, could help the U.S. Cus- toms and Border Protection as well.
Another advantage: Rapid DNA
would lighten the notoriously heavy loads weighing down DNA labs around the country. And using DNA evidence to help solve crimes would leave detectives in police forces around the country more time to spend on their remaining cases. Of course, there is another side to
the argument. The Electronic Priva- cy Information Center, which fi led a brief in Maryland v. King, said the collection of a DNA sample from an individual “raises a profound and far- reaching privacy concern.” The Supreme Court is expected
to issue its decision on the collection of DNA perhaps as early as June. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has called it “the most important crim- inal procedural case that this court has heard in decades.”
Privacy Comes Into Play W
hen Maryland police first arrested Alonzo Jay King, Jr., for
assault in 2009, it was for a relatively minor off ense. But that event eventually led to life in prison for King. The reason: While being processed
by police, the inside of his mouth was swabbed for DNA, which was added to the state database. Lo and behold, it matched the DNA
collected from an unsolved rape case in 2003.
When the rape case went
to trial, King’s attorneys tried to suppress the DNA evidence but were unsuccessful. King was convicted, but
before he even had a chance to file an appeal, the Court of Appeals of Maryland announced it would review the lower court’s verdict. The Appeals Court ruled
King’s expectation of privacy outweighed the state’s interest in prosecuting him. It overturned the conviction.
And sometime this summer, the
U.S. Supreme Court, which already has heard oral arguments in Maryland v. King, will decide whether collecting DNA from people who have been arrested but not yet convicted is permissible under the Bill of Rights. Twenty-four other states have similar
laws to Maryland’s, so the impact of the ruling will be widespread. Opponents of DNA testing prior to
SEPICH
conviction say it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Noted civil rights attorney Norman Pattis objects to using DNA to “go fishing” in a suspect’s genetic database. But using DNA is just fine with DNA crusader Jayann Sepich, whose 22-year- old daughter Katie was murdered a decade ago.
She says, “I think this is a very
reasonable search when you balance it with what is to be gained.” — C.M.
MAY 2013 | NEWSMAX 23
SWAB/ANTON LUHR/NEWSCOM / SEPICH/HYOUNG CHANG/DENVER POST/GETTY IMAGES
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92