'Grim Sleeper' case raises privacy concerns over use of DNA
| Los Angeles
To break the "Grim Sleeper" serial killer case in California, authorities used a controversial new law that allowed them to take DNA from the suspect's family members. The evidence led to the arrest of a man suspected of murdering at least 10 women in Los Angeles over 25 years.
Is it a breakthrough in police science? Or does it have the potential for privacy invasion? Such questions are now being debated by law enforcement officials and legal scholars.
Lonnie David Franklin Jr. was arrested July 7 on multiple murder counts after the state DNA lab uncovered a link between murder scene material and Mr. Franklin鈥檚 son, Christopher.
Last year, Christopher was convicted of a felony weapons charge and his DNA was collected and sent to the state DNA data bank. Initial searches to find the 鈥淕rim Sleeper鈥� suspect under the new program that same month failed to find a relative in the database. A second search this spring was successful.
At a press conference Thursday, the mayor, police commission president, Los Angeles County sheriff, victims鈥� family members, and detectives all lauded the new procedure.
'This will change the face of policing'
鈥淭his will change the face of policing in the United States,鈥� said LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, speaking of the new technique. California became the first state to adopt the new search program in 2008, and it has been used only 10 times since its inception.
鈥淭he suspect would still be at large except for the familial search program,鈥� said California Attorney General Jerry Brown.
Here鈥檚 how the procedure works: Crime scene samples are compared to the DNA of convicted offenders in the state database to see if they match. Forensics experts examine how many of the DNA markers are shared and how rare the markers are.
鈥淣ow we鈥檝e proven how important this forensic technology is by tracking down a suspected serial killer who terrorized Los Angeles for more than two decades,鈥� said Attorney General Brown. Still, he acknowledges criticism of the technique based on privacy concerns.
鈥淚n the face of a multitude of objections, we鈥檝e crafted a balanced policy to respect the rights of citizens and at the same time deploy the most powerful DNA search technology available,鈥� he said, emphasizing that familial DNA searches are done under rigorous guidelines and that they are only allowed in major, violent crimes when there is a serious risk to public safety.
But law enforcement specialists around the country are wondering about the moral and ethical aspects of this new method of solving crimes.
鈥淭his does not violate the US Constitution鈥檚 Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure,鈥� says Tod Burke, professor of criminal justice at Radford University in Virginia. 鈥淏ut the bigger question is moral and legal: Is this Big Brother? And the answer really is, 鈥榊es.鈥� 鈥�
Professor Burke and others ask how far this kind of investigation will go.
鈥淭he government has justified the collection and retention of the DNA in the database on limited and specific grounds, but now they are pushing out into new, possibly unforeseen uses for the DNA,鈥� says Anne Bowen Poulin, a professor at Villanova University School of Law.
鈥淎s science progresses, the government may find additional unforeseen uses, some with more negative impact on the source of the DNA,鈥� Professor Poulin says. 鈥淕ood police work? Most would probably applaud it. Risk to privacy? We probably won鈥檛 know until it鈥檚 too late.鈥�
The ACLU has weighed in on the 鈥淕rim Sleeper鈥� case, named for the many years that passed between the crimes.
鈥淚f you are going to use familial DNA testing, this is probably the case for it,鈥� says ACLU staff attorney Peter Bibring. 鈥淏ut it is a mistake to think this should or could be used all the time.鈥�
Serious privacy concerns raised
DNA collection raises serious privacy concerns because it carries so much information about the person鈥檚 health and family relationships, Mr. Bibring says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not just about criminal activity, it鈥檚 so much more than that.鈥�
Others note that because this technique is so new, not much regulation exists, and therefore there is likely to be many court challenges.
鈥淧rivacy concerns raised by the use of familial DNA to crack the 'Grim Sleeper' murders may create significant problems for the prosecution, should a defense attorney challenge the evidence,鈥� says James Alan Fox, professor of criminology, law, and public policy at Northeastern University in Boston. He calls the arrest in the 鈥淕rim Sleeper鈥� case 鈥渟urprising鈥� and 鈥渦nusual.鈥�
鈥淟aws permit the collection and storage of DNA data on certain convicted offenders for use in potentially linking future crimes to these same criminals, but not to their blood relatives who happen to have similar genetic profiles,鈥� he says. 鈥淭his is not so much a concern for the slippery slope of privacy invasion, but a case of legal quicksand.鈥�
Related:
