The 2005 arrest of the serial killer known as the BTK (Bind-Torture-Kill) was made possible by an emerging and controversial law enforcement tool: analysis of the DNA of a relative of the suspect. Investigators can determine from the similarity of the samples if the suspect is related to the genetic donor, such as being a parent or sibling.
In the case of the BTK killer, police learned that a CD had been sent to a local television station by a person named “Dennis.” Police focused on local church congregation president Dennis Rader and obtained a subpoena to examine the results of a pap smear that his daughter had given while attending Kansas State University.
However, unlike the BTK murder case – in which police had a particular suspect – states are now moving to conduct broad searches of genetic databases to find partial matches that could implicate a family member. Moreover, many of these databases were not intended for law enforcement purposes, and their donors often are not convicted criminals.
Such databases, called “rogue databases” by critics, include the DNA of victims, suspects and even lab workers. The databases are barred from being entered in state and national databases, but rules about their use by law enforcement agencies remain unclear.
One concern is that the practice turns family members into genetic informants, leading to the arrest and conviction of a family member when the donor did not give consent for the search, but gave the genetic material for reasons unrelated to law enforcement – such as health care.
“It is so troubling to think that somebody would have a sample taken for her medical welfare that is then used to implicate her father,” said law professor Sonia Suter of George Washington University while commenting on the BTK trial.
But, being the offspring of someone suspected of a violent crime is not a privileged relationship, such as being the doctor or legal counsel of an accused person. It seems like common human decency is to want to take a violent predator off the streets, even if that predator is your own father – anything less seems not only unreasonable, but just plain immoral.
Due to the precision of DNA, the practice also has the potential of eliminating false convictions, while at the same time increasing legitimate convictions by an estimated 40 percent, according the Washington Post.
Mining databases for matches is seen as violating the longstanding legal doctrine of limiting searches and seizures to specific individuals suspected of criminal activity. To many, broad searches of government databases amount to “fishing expeditions,” which are expressly forbidden by the Fourth Amendment.
For this reason, Congress needs to get involved in order to set down guidelines that provide for effective law enforcement while protecting our democracy from inappropriate government intrusion. Although the practice is justified by its ability to find violent offenders and exonerate the innocent, the lack of clear legal guidelines is troubling.
Christopher Herrin is a graduate religious studies major and a contributing writer for the Daily Forty-Niner.
