In 2015, after being arrested for DUI, Ian Mitchum agreed to have a blood sample taken to test his blood alcohol level. He was told the samples would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held it for his three years. Later, without obtaining a warrant, detectives used this old blood sample for a completely different purpose – to extract and analyze Mitchum’s DNA while investigating another crime.
This clearly violates Mitchum’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, as we will argue in the Arizona Court of Appeals tomorrow and set out in a friend of the court brief. Nevertheless, the state makes terrible claims to justify its actions. In other words, states have the power to obtain DNA profiles from any biological sample in their legal possession without judicial oversight or approval.
The results of this discussion are appalling. Our DNA contains highly personal and sensitive information, such as medical history, possible future health conditions, ancestry, and information about appearance. It could reveal details about not only us, but our family, including future children. When combined with other public data, it exposes highly personal information such as previously unknown family history of adoption, false paternity attribution, risk of premature death, or siblings we didn’t know about. may occur. In light of this, DNA collection and analysis amounts to seizure and search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. And the government must obtain a warrant before it can pull it out.
But in the present case, the state could ignore that requirement, even if Mr Mitchum had consented to the blood sample being taken three years earlier, even if he had consented to the blood sample being taken only for blood alcohol testing, and the sample would not have been taken. He argues that it should have been destroyed after the age of 90. day to day.
With this rationale, all of us who have consented to the collection of biological samples for any government agency at any time, for any purpose, are subject to post-warrant-free DNA testing.
This means that governments can use our biological material, from blood taken from newborns to test for disease, to organs donated for transplants, to specimens collected from survivors of sexual assault. Considering every situation where you can legally access to, it is very dangerous. If the state’s claims are accepted, in theory, police could extract DNA from any person’s biological material and create a genetic profile without a warrant.
Many federal agencies collect our biological materials for important public health purposes. The National Institutes of Health collects blood, body fluids, tissues, and other biological material to study the genetic and environmental factors associated with disease in order to develop new treatments. To measure exposure to pollutants, the Environmental Protection Agency collects biological samples from people living near pollution sites or from populations that may be at high risk of exposure to environmental pollutants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is collecting biological samples, such as blood for Ebola and nose and throat swabs for COVID-19, to study changes in the virus and develop new treatments. I’m here. It also collects blood from about 5,000 people each year “to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children.”
Additionally, governments collect biological materials for more personal purposes and people consent to their use, which is also different from criminal investigations. For example, some U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents provide oral swabs to people wishing to immigrate to the U.S. to verify family ties. People donate their biological material to help identify or search for missing family members. Olympic and Paralympic athletes submit biological samples, including blood, to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency for testing for prohibited substances.
Sample collection often targets minority communities.. For example, the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma hired scientists to collect DNA from black people to identify relatives of individuals killed in the Tulsa race massacre. In Arizona, where the incident took place, the Pima County Coroner’s Office is currently collecting DNA from Latin American individuals to help identify more than 1,200 bodies. Given the country’s history of systematic abuse, the risks posed by unfettered access to genetic information for marginalized communities are beyond doubt.
Without constitutional protection, the risk of governments misusing these resources to generate and analyze genetic profiles at will is likely to increase. Consider how law enforcement acted in this case, as well as their actions in other criminal investigations where DNA is collected from discarded or discarded items without the suspect’s knowledge or consent. This kind of abuse would not be surprising, then, and would not be far off. Moreover, when privacy protections are compromised, so is public trust in these important government programs. Without this trust, critical medical and public health research will be compromised.
Even if a government agrees to collect biological samples for specific purposes, it cannot allow free genetic testing for criminal investigations. A warrant is required.
Uroaba Abid is a paralegal for the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. Vera Edelman is staff attorney for the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. Crystal Grant is a former ACLU Technology Fellow. For over 100 years, the ACLU has worked in courts, parliaments, and communities to defend the constitutional rights of all people. With a nationwide network of offices and millions of members and supporters, the ACLU is committed to the toughest civil liberties struggles in pursuit of liberty and justice for all. To learn more about ACLU and read features by other Creator Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit her website at Creators at www.creators.com.
by distance creator
Photo credit: Anild at Unsplash
