New Jersey police’s use of a baby’s DNA violated the public's trust
On television, when DNA evidence is used in an innovative way to solve a cold case, the police are heralded as heroes.
On television, when DNA evidence is used in an innovative way to solve a cold case, the police are heralded as heroes. But in New Jersey, state police face fierce criticism for allegedly doing just that. The reason? According to a July public records lawsuit, law enforcement used blood taken from an infant to link the child’s father to a 1996 sexual assault case. The sample was originally taken about nine years ago during a mandatory screening for genetic diseases.
The lawsuit, filed by the New Jersey Monitor and the Office of the Public Defender, details how law enforcement subpoenaed a laboratory to get the DNA sample and aims to determine how common this practice is. According to the lawsuit, parents may not be aware that these samples will be retained, let alone that they may be used in this way.
By pursuing a subpoena rather than a warrant — either to avoid legal scrutiny by the courts or because it did not have probable cause to seek a warrant — the New Jersey State Police committed an unforced public relations error.
Privacy activists and civil libertarians are alarmed, and with good reason. Obtaining medical samples without notice for a criminal investigation into a relative is, to say the least, uncharted constitutional waters. Although using old medical samples may offer tremendous potential for solving cold cases, prosecutors and law enforcement need to first build public trust and take measures to ensure the practice is limited, transparent, regulated and subject to strict oversight so that the public can decide to broaden or restrict its use based on how things go.
By pursuing a subpoena rather than a warrant — either to avoid legal scrutiny by the courts or because it did not have probable cause to seek a warrant — the New Jersey State Police committed an unforced public relations error. Not to mention, the action may have violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable (warrantless) search and seizure.
Rating: 5