Privacy concerns may bring issue before Supreme Court.


ents had given “implied consent” to conduct research on their baby’s blood samples by agreeing for it to be tested by the state for disorders. He concluded the practice was a violation of both the


parents and baby’s 14th Amendment due process rights. Government officials and medical researchers strongly


contend that providing baby blood to third parties is for the greater good. The hallmark of the argument is the use of “familial


DNA” by law enforcement to catch serial rapist and mur- derer Joseph James DeAngelo, better known as the infa- mous Golden State Killer. The 40-year-old cold case was solved in 2018 when police


obtained a generated DNA profile from FamilyTreeDNA. But that DNA was given voluntarily. The Institute for Justice, which is representing the


parents in the New Jersey lawsuit, argues that baby blood is the personal property of the parents and thus protected by Fourth Amendment rights against government search and seizures. The New Jersey Public Defender’s Office in fact filed


a lawsuit against the state on similar grounds as part of its defense of a man found guilty based on baby blood obtained by state police. Deputy Public Defender Tamar Lerer, whose field of


expertise is forensic science, said there is no constitutional provision that would allow for a minor child’s blood to be obtained and tested without probable cause. “And, of course, a baby did not commit a crime,” she said. Advocates against the use of baby blood without paren-


tal permission also argue that police are sidestepping war- rant requirements by buying baby blood from the third parties the state gave or sold it to. The controversy, Ellison believes, will prove to have far-


sweeping implications about DNA privacy, and he suspects the issue will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.


Is It Smart to Spit? T


he blood money controversy has many questioning the wisdom of sending spit samples to genealogy websites to


learn more about a person’s heritage. In a video that recently went viral on various social media platforms, three women gathered to share their DNA results. One eagerly said her test showed she was 16% Irish, 18% Hungarian, and the rest Italian. Another shared the news that she is 75% French. The clip ends with the third saying, “As it turns out, I’m 92% dumba** for sending a DNA sample to a random website that now has full copyright and unregulated access to my genetic code for the rest of time.”


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  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100