Pennsylvania May Require DNA Samples For All Felony Arrests

May 13, 2011 (Press-News.org) Legislation has been introduced that would require suspects charged with felonies and some misdemeanors to be swabbed for DNA samples in Pennsylvania.

The bill is expected to move rapidly through the legislative process. Prosecutors favor the move as making it easier to obtain convictions.

The present law limits DNA samples to those convicted or where permitted by a search warrant.

The Pittsburg Tribune-Review quotes Sgt. Joe Gannon, from the Pittsburg police sex assault squad, and he explained that as evidence, it could go either way, "I think it's a good thing both ways," he said. "It can work to help prove a case and it can help to exonerate a person."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes the legislation. The Pennsylvania director noted that it would allow someone's DNA to be "searched" in all jurisdictions, without probable cause, when they have never been convicted of a crime.

The law also would expand the collection of DNA to some misdemeanors, casting a very wide net.

Prosecutors want to gather as much DNA as possible, as it allows them to test suspects against ever larger databases, such as the national CODIS database.

The concern here is justification for gathering the DNA from those not convicted seems to conflict with the Fourth Amendment and it is prohibition against unreasonable search and seizures.

A court, it would seem, would need to find that it was reasonable that obtaining the DNA of someone who was not convicted of the crime with which they are charged, and then maintain that information, on a nationwide database, to make it easier for police to convict them for a future crime.

This, while convenient for police, seems constitutionally infirm. If that were the standard, why not take DNA samples of everyone at birth, load them into a database, and anytime a crime is committed, it would be an easy matter to search the records until a match is found.

Pennsylvania courts have permitted the use of DNA databanks, based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, but they have done so in very specific circumstances:

"In the instant case, the blood-testing program subjects a target population of convicted inmates with reduced privacy expectations, to a relatively minimal intrusion in furtherance of the Commonwealth's need to maintain an identification system to deter recidivism. The slight intrusion occasioned by the withdrawal of blood is outweighed by the special public interest in maintaining an identification data bank.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not review this topic recently, (Justice Stevens wrote the last opinion) so it is a very open question how the present court would rule on a question of creating a database of DNA from those convicted of no crime.

Article provided by The Law Offices of David S. Shrager
Visit us at www.shragerlawfirm.com