N.Y.P.D. Detectives Gave a Boy, 12, a Soda. He Landed in a DNA Database.

SummerMadness · Aug 15, 2019

N.Y.P.D. Detectives Gave a Boy, 12, a Soda. He Landed in a DNA Database.

New York City detectives questioning a boy facing a felony charge last year offered him a McDonald’s soda. When the boy left, they took the straw and tested it for his DNA.

Although it did not match evidence found at a crime scene, his DNA was entered into the city’s genetic database. To have it removed, the child's family had to petition a court and file an appeal, a process that took more than a year. The boy was 12.

The city's DNA database has grown by nearly 29 percent over the last two years, and now has 82,473 genetic profiles, becoming a potentially potent tool for law enforcement but one that operates with little if any oversight.

A petition should not be needed, his DNA should not be in the database at all. Moreover, his DNA should not be collected or tested without a warrant.

Arcangl86 · Aug 15, 2019

Warrants aren't needed for discarded items. They shouldn't have been able to keep it though.

D.A. Wright · Aug 15, 2019

Arcangl86 said:
Warrants aren't needed for discarded items. They shouldn't have been able to keep it though.

Uh, why not?

variant · Aug 15, 2019

SummerMadness said:
N.Y.P.D. Detectives Gave a Boy, 12, a Soda. He Landed in a DNA Database.

A petition should not be needed, his DNA should not be in the database at all. Moreover, his DNA should not be collected or tested without a warrant.

It's a common practice and a well known shady police tactic.

variant · Aug 15, 2019

D.A. Wright said:
Uh, why not?

DNA gathering should be protected by medical privacy laws unless there is probable cause of a crime.

D.A. Wright · Aug 16, 2019

variant said:
DNA gathering should be protected by medical privacy laws unless there is probable cause of a crime.

I should have been more specific. I meant to ask if there was some legal reason they should not have been able to keep it, and I think the answer to that is no. Medical privacy laws are for the purpose of keeping a person's condition of health private, I believe, and not for concealing a person's genetic identity.

Disposing of something containing one's own human DNA is considered the same as allowing a search without a warrant, under the law, is it not?

Although, now that I think about it, the age of the subject could possibly invalidate this analogy, couldn't it?

Yes, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to say that the evidence was gathered improperly, if not illegally. Especially considering the police officers bought and provided the receptacle for the specimen.

Shame, shame.

JCFantasy23 · Aug 16, 2019

variant said:
It's a common practice and a well known shady police tactic.

I was thinking the same thing. Police often do this. As long as you leave it behind, or "throw it away", they can then use DNA off it.

JCFantasy23 · Aug 16, 2019

And no, I'm not arguing this is a practice I agree with, just stating I think it's common. To me it's a fishy way to get around some law protections.

SummerMadness · Aug 16, 2019

There are two issues here. One is the unethical way in which they obtained the child's DNA. But let's just say there is a loophole that allows this, the next issue is the keeping of this DNA in a database. Unless this child is convicted of a serious violent crime, then his DNA should not be kept in the system. This is a case where people should not have to opt-out of extra surveillance.

variant · Aug 16, 2019

D.A. Wright said:
I should have been more specific. I meant to ask if there was some legal reason they should not have been able to keep it, and I think the answer to that is no. Medical privacy laws are for the purpose of keeping a person's condition of health private, I believe, and not for concealing a person's genetic identity.

A persons genetic identity is their medical identity.

The police are in possession of the data, and are in no way limited in how they can use it.

This is why medical privacy laws should be in effect here. They have collected medical data here without permission and without a warrant.

So at the very least there should be a HIPPA waver.

Disposing of something containing one's own human DNA is considered the same as allowing a search without a warrant, under the law, is it not?

Although, now that I think about it, the age of the subject could possibly invalidate this analogy, couldn't it?

Its about the privacy equivalent of someone rooting through your trash for scraps of your DNA.

Neither children or adults expect this of an agency pledged to protect their rights, which is why it is done and why it is effective. It is also why it is an invasion of privacy.

Yes, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to say that the evidence was gathered improperly, if not illegally. Especially considering the police officers bought and provided the receptacle for the specimen.

Shame, shame.

They also caused the situation where someone was detained long enough to need a drink and then provided one to get medical information out of them.

If I did something like that it would be considered kidnapping, fraud and an invasion of privacy.

The only standard that changes between me and the police is that they are allowed to question and hold people and I am not. They should not be allowed to take liberties with that extra power that we trust them with.

This makes this type of thing, an abuse of power.

D.A. Wright · Aug 16, 2019

variant said:
A persons genetic identity is their medical identity.

The police are in possession of the data, and are in no way limited in how they can use it.

This is why medical privacy laws should be in effect here. They have collected medical data here without permission and without a warrant.

So at the very least there should be a HIPPA waver.

Its about the privacy equivalent of someone rooting through your trash for scraps of your DNA.

Neither children or adults expect this of an agency pledged to protect their rights, which is why it is done and why it is effective. It is also why it is an invasion of privacy.

They also caused the situation where someone was detained long enough to need a drink and then provided one to get medical information out of them.

If I did something like that it would be considered kidnapping, fraud and an invasion of privacy.

The only standard that changes between me and the police is that they are allowed to question and hold people and I am not. They should not be allowed to take liberties with that extra power that we trust them with.

This makes this type of thing, an abuse of power.

You seem to be saying it's wrong ethically, but permitted, perhaps legally, while I'm sugestting that while I agree that it's wrong ethically, I also suspect that a compelling case could be made for the illegality of the situation (even if it were laughed out of court.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda is basically just low-grade spam.

variant · Aug 16, 2019

D.A. Wright said:
You seem to be saying it's wrong ethically, but permitted, perhaps legally, while I'm sugestting that while I agree that it's wrong ethically, I also suspect that a compelling case could be made for the illegality of the situation (even if it were laughed out of court.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda is basically just low-grade spam.

I think a case could be made for illegality. These are public officials collecting medical data without warrant or warning.

D.A. Wright · Aug 16, 2019

variant said:
A persons genetic identity is their medical identity.

Personally, I'd need to see a few citations from authoritative medical and/or legal sources to buy that one. My wife (a CJ degree-holder) and I both gave that the big spontaneous raspberry when I read it aloud.

variant said:
The police are in possession of the data, and are in no way limited in how they can use it.

Mega, Giga-Baloney. Proof, please.

variant said:
This is why medical privacy laws should be in effect here. They have collected medical data here without permission and without a warrant.
So at the very least there should be a HIPPA waver.

This is just expansion on the stuff in the first quote with "should"s added.

variant said:
Its about the privacy equivalent of someone rooting through your trash for scraps of your DNA.

"It's about" is another of my favorite phrases to chuckle at. It's nearly always followed by an attempt to conflate the unrelated. If you don't know the law, just say you don't know the law. It's no crime.

variant said:
Neither children or adults expect this of an agency pledged to protect their rights, which is why it is done and why it is effective.

Or maybe they're just trying to do their job--solve crimes.

variant said:
It is also why it is an invasion of privacy.

More conflation.

variant said:
They also caused the situation where someone was detained long enough to need a drink and then provided one to get medical information out of them.
If I did something like that it would be considered kidnapping, fraud and an invasion of privacy.

As it should be. Unless you're a police officer (although I don't get the "fraud and an invasion of privacy" part).

variant said:
The only standard that changes between me and the police is that they are allowed to question and hold people and I am not.

Utterly remarkable statement of the obvious. And it's not a "standard that changes." It's a bona fide, jurisdictive distinction.

variant said:
They should not be allowed to take liberties with that extra power that we trust them with.

Agreed! And according to all provided accounts: They didn't.

variant said:
This makes this type of thing, an abuse of power.

I hope they keep up their "abuse of power" in my neighborhood.

hedrick · Aug 16, 2019

There's an implication to this that I don't like. Are we going to have to teach our kids to be paranoid about police?

variant · Aug 16, 2019

D.A. Wright said:
Personally, I'd need to see a few citations from authoritative medical and/or legal sources to buy that one. My wife (a CJ degree-holder)

Well you're right on this one, the supreme court ruled in the favor of police taking DNA samples from arrested and not yet convicted individuals in a blow to privacy rights everywhere in 2013.

But no, I don't think the police taking DNA samples from someone they aren't charging with a crime from a discarded cup for a database is all that distinct from rummaging through your trash for it.

variant · Aug 16, 2019

hedrick said:
There's an implication to this that I don't like. Are we going to have to teach our kids to be paranoid about police?

We absolutely should if they are going to routinely use underhanded and unethical practices.

Hank77 · Aug 16, 2019

SummerMadness said:
N.Y.P.D. Detectives Gave a Boy, 12, a Soda. He Landed in a DNA Database.

A petition should not be needed, his DNA should not be in the database at all. Moreover, his DNA should not be collected or tested without a warrant.

How did the parents know they had taken and saved his DNA? It's good to know that there is something that can be done about it though.

JCFantasy23 · Aug 17, 2019

variant said:
But no, I don't think the police taking DNA samples from someone they aren't charging with a crime from a discarded cup for a database is all that distinct from rummaging through your trash for it.

Police are allowed to rummage through your trash or anything discarded to collect DNA.

"The process is called “surreptitious sampling” and it occurs when a person leaves a DNA sample behind somewhere. It doesn’t matter whether because the suspect smoked a cigarette and threw it away in the trash in front of a police officer or had a cup of water during a police questioning and threw away the cup in the interrogation room trash can, if police can get an uncompromised DNA sample from something a suspect threw away, they can. In fact, they can even swab a chair you sat in to get a sample from your sweat."

Also, they are allowed to use your mail once it leaves your residence to collect DNA -

“Abandoned DNA” comes into play when the police don’t have a DNA sample, and can’t force a suspect to give one up. In Washington in 2003, police posed as a fictitious law firm and sent a letter with a return envelope to a murder suspect named John Nicholas Athan, inviting him to participate in a fake class-action lawsuit. He replied, and police lifted DNA from Athan’s saliva on the seal of the envelope and used it to convict him of the killing. The Washington State Supreme Court reviewed the technique and ruled it permissible, explaining that as soon as a letter goes in the mail, “The envelope, and any saliva contained on it, becomes the property of the recipient.”

JCFantasy23 · Aug 17, 2019

The article is in a second grey area besides dubious "consent", and that is the practice that most DNA has to be collected from a minor with parental permission. I think this seems to vary by state, though.

Most states have few or no restrictions on the ability of local law enforcement to collect DNA from minors. But that is starting to change. Last week, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislationthat requires police in that state to obtain either judicial approval or consent from a parent or guardian before collecting DNA from minors during street stops. - source

I think that we will ultimately see more fights and law changes on all this. We are behind on changing some of these laws since we have developed DNA tracking and put so much emphasis on it. I'm guessing the convictions they're getting of it, along with the high praise, win rates and monies incentives, have slowed this down. I have a feeling we'll slowly make strides, but it will take time and the law officials certainly won't be the ones to rush this process.

hedrick · Aug 17, 2019

JCFantasy23 said:
Police are allowed to rummage through your trash or anything discarded to collect DNA.

Just because the Supreme Court has turned conservative doesn't make this practice acceptable.

N.Y.P.D. Detectives Gave a Boy, 12, a Soda. He Landed in a DNA Database.

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Stealth Defender Of Holy Writ

Happy Cat

Happy Cat

Stealth Defender Of Holy Writ

In a Kingdom by the Sea.

In a Kingdom by the Sea.

Senior Veteran

Happy Cat

Stealth Defender Of Holy Writ

Happy Cat

Stealth Defender Of Holy Writ

Senior Veteran

Happy Cat

Happy Cat

Well-Known Member

In a Kingdom by the Sea.

In a Kingdom by the Sea.

Senior Veteran

Similar threads