Law enforcement use of DNA evidence has produced a wondrous string of arrests in difficult and long-dormant cases.
It is such a powerful tool that some in law enforcement want to expand DNA collection practices to include taking samples from those merely arrested for crimes, as opposed to convicted.
It’s an intriguing idea, but one that must be approached thoughtfully, with privacy concerns in mind.
Denver DA Mitch Morrissey, an authority on DNA, and others are pushing for a new Colorado law allowing DNA collection upon arrest for a felony, according to a story last week in the Rocky Mountain News.
He told the Rocky he has been working with legislators from both parties to alleviate concerns and figure out how to fund the estimated $7 million annual program. Morrissey said he expects a bill to be introduced this month.
It’s among a handful of similar proposals around the country. Already, 11 states collect DNA from arrestees, according to , a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm that tracks such legislation.
There are upsides to taking DNA upon arrest. If an arrestee’s DNA matches evidence left at the scene of an unsolved crime, the suspect could be detained instead of released on bail to perhaps commit another crime, or disappear altogether.
The Diego Olmos-Alcalde case provides an example of how DNA could have been used to catch him earlier.
Olmos-Alcalde recently was arrested in the 1997 murder of University of Colorado student Susannah Chase. Mere weeks after her murder, Olmos-Alcalde was arrested for allegedly raping a prostitute. If his DNA had been collected upon arrest in the rape case, there’s a chance he would have been arrested for the Chase murder — before he committed other crimes.
Colorado law provides for DNA samples to be taken and put into a national database only after conviction and a prison sentence. Olmos- Alcalde’s rape charge was dropped before trial.
An expansion of collection practices poses potential problems, too.
While Colorado is in better shape than many other states, law enforcement’s expanding DNA collection practices could put a strain on crime labs.
And it raises significant privacy concerns. DNA can yield personal information beyond confirming identity and its collection could raise Fourth Amendment questions such as: Is it a search and do you need probable cause and a warrant? Furthermore, what happens to the DNA sample if an arrestee is not prosecuted?
Morrissey has indicated he is taking these sorts of concerns into account and we look forward to seeing the proposed legislation. DNA analysis holds immense potential to catch criminals where other methods have failed. The challenge is to use it in a way that doesn’t cause more problems than it solves.
