The Tension between Genome Privacy and Criminal Justice in the Wake of DNA Databases

Abstract

Using DNA databases has a significant role in finding truths in criminal law; therefore, national DNA databases are becoming common worldwide. Consequently, their size is increasing every year. However, do we actually need a DNA database for the sake of criminal justice? Within this context, this study first demonstrates how common it is to create DNA databases today and how much information is retained in these databases. Then, the key question emerges: how do we find the balance between the competing interests of ensuring the right to privacy while facilitating the state’s interest in solving crimes? This is where the main implementation criteria for data entry, storage and destruction become significant. More concretely, we examine the criteria that should be adopted around whether DNA samples for particular criminals should be included. For example, should DNA samples be included in the case of serious crimes, e.g., crimes against life, sexual abuse, and robbery, as well as crimes requiring punishment of more than a certain time period, such as more than one year? Further, is it possible to remove DNA information from the database? This study is based on the proposal that these criteria play a significant role in softening the tension between breaching privacy and the State’s interest in fighting and solving crimes. This study will focus on these criteria, summarized as data entry, storage and destruction by considering comparative law including the EU, the ECHR and the USA analysis.

Keywords

• DNA,Genome,Databank,storage,privacy,crime,criminal procedure,Prüm Convention,the EU member countries,the USA,the ECHR,S and Marper vs. United Kingdom,Maryland vs. King

References

1. ALTAŞ, E., Bir Koruma Tedbiri olarak Moleküler Genetik İncelemeler ve Türkiye Milli DNA Veribankası Kanunu Tasarısı, (2007) 3 CHD, p. 76.
2. ARISOY, Y. & ERESEN, Ç. & ÖZBEK, V. Ö, Yeni yasal düzenlemeler ve Moleküler Genetik İncelemeler (New Laws and Molecular Genetic Tests: Review), (2008) 28 Türkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci, p.178.
3. Der Bundesrat, Das Portal der Schweizer Regierung, DNA-Profil-Gesetz, Art. 3 Probenahme und DNA-Analyse in Strafverfahren, available at https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20031383/index.html#a3 (11.04.2016).
4. EUR-Lex, Stepping up cross-border cooperation (Prüm Decision), last updated: 24.11.2010, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Ajl0005 (10.04.2016).
5. İLGİLİ, Ö. & ARDA, B., Forensic DNA Banking Legislation in Developing Countries: Privacy and Confidentiality Concerns Regarding a Draft from Turkish Legislation”, (2014) 12 Revista Română de Bioetică, p. 56.
6. INTERPOL, Overview, available at http://www.interpol.int/About-INTERPOL/Overview (10.04.2016). INTERPOL, Fact Sheet, DNA Profiling, available at http://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-media/Publications/Fact-sheets/DNA-Profiling/(10.04.2016).
7. Federal Office of Police, The CODIS DNA database, available at https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/personenidentifikation/dna-profile/die_datenbank_codis.html (11.04. 2016).
8. HILDEBRANDT, M., Who is Profiling Who? Invisible Visibility, in Gutwirth, S., Poullet, Y., de Hert, P., de Terwangne, C., Nouwt, S. (eds.), Reinventing Data Protection?, Springer, Netherlands, 2009, p. 239.

9. Home Office, Policy paper Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: How DNA and Fingerprint Evidence Is Protected in Law, Published 4 April 2013, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-dna-and-fingerprint-provisions/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-how-dna-and-fingerprint-evidence-is-protected-in-law#fn:4 (11.04.2016).
10. KOEHLER, J. & CHIA, A. & LINDSEY, S., The Random Match Probability (RMP) in DNA Evidence: Irrelevant and Prejudicial?, (1995) 35 Jurimetrics Journal, p. 201.
11. Legislation.gov.uk, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, 2012, c. 9, Part 1, Chapter 1, Destruction rules for samples and impressions of footwear subject to PACE, Section 14, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/section/14/enacted?view=interweave (11.04.2016).
12. MARCHESE, V. & CERRI, N. & CAENAZZO, L., “Italian National Forensic DNA Database in an European Perspective”, (2013) 4 Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, p. e246.
13. MURPHY, E., The Dark Side of DNA Databases, Oct 8, 2015, available at http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-dark-side-of-dna-databases/408709/, (08.04.2016).
14. NAVEED, M. & AYDAY, E. & W. CLAYTON, E. & FELLAY, J. & A. GUNTER, C. & HUBAUX, J. & A. MALIN, B. & WANG, X., Privacy and Security in the Genomic Era, p.1, available at arXiv:1405.1891 (14.04.2016).
15. ÖZBEK, V. Ö, DNA Verileri ve Türkiye Milli DNA Veri Bankası Kanunu Tasarısı Hakkındaki Görüşlerimiz, (2007) 3 CHD, p. 47.
16. PASCALI, V. & LAGO, G. & DOBOSZ, M., The dark side of the UK National DNA Database, (2003) 362 The Lancet, p. 834, available at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14261-4, (08.04.2016).
17. RODRIGUES, R., Big Bio Brother is here: Wanting, Taking and Keeping Your DNA, p.1, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1113344 (12.04.2016).
18. ROTHSTEIN, M. & TALBOTT, M., The Expanding Use of DNA in Law Enforcement: What Role for Privacy?, (2006) 34 The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, p.153.
19. SANTOS, F. & MACHADO, H. & SILVA, S., Forensic DNA Databases in European Countries: is Size Linked to Performance?, (2013) 9 Life Sciences, Society and Policy, p.1, available at http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/9/1/12 (10.04.2016).
20. SCHNEIDER, P. & MARTIN, P., Criminal DNA Databases: The European Situation, (2001) 119 Forensic Science International, p. 232.
21. SILVERSTEIN,J., The Dark Side of DNA, (2013) 296 The Nation, p.6.
22. Supreme Court of the United States, Maryland vs. King (425 Md. 550, 42 A. 3d 549, reversed), No. 12–207. Argued 26. 02. 2013—Decided 03. 06. 2013, available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-207 (03.04.2016).
23. Supreme Court of the United States, Maryland v. King (425 Md. 550, 42 A. 3d 549, reversed), Syllabus, Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, SCALIA, J., dissenting, p.1, available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/12-207.pdf, (11.08.2017).
24. The ECHR, Peruzzo and Martens vs. Germany, Application nos. 7841/08 and. 57900/12, available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=002-7614&filename=002-7614.pdf (14.04.2016).
25. The ECHR, S and Marper vs. The United Kingdom, Applications nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, available at https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/dataprotection/Judgments/S.%20AND%20MARPER%20v.%20THE%20UNITED%20KINGDOM%20EN.pdf (11.04.2016).
26. The ECHR, Judgment Aycaguer v. France - refusal to participate in a national genetic database, available at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“fulltext”:[“\”CASE OF AYCAGUER v. FRANCE\””], ”documentcollectionid2”:[“GRANDCHAMBER”,”CHAMBER”],”itemid”:[“001-175007”]}(19.11 .2017)).
27. The FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the CODIS Program and the National DNA Index System, available at https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric- analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet (11.04.2016).
28. The Guardian, Police retain DNA from thousands of children, Vikram Dodd, Monday, 20 May 2013, available at http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/20/police-retain-dna-thousands-children (11.04.2016).
29. The Howard League for Penal Reform, Police take DNA samples from children every 10 minutes, Press statement, 20 May 2013, available at http://www.howardleague.org/police-and-dna-samples/ (11.04.2016).
30. The National Police Chiefs’ Council/Home Office/ National DNA Database, National DNA Database Strategy Board Annual Report 2014/15, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/484937/52921_NPCC_National_DNA_Database_web_pdf.pdf (09.04.2016).
31. The National Registry of Exonerations, A Project of the University of Michigan Law School, available at http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exoneration-by-Year.aspx (12.04. 2016).
32. The New York State Senate, Statement by Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos on Expansion of DNA Databank, 14. 03. 2012, Issue: Crime, available at https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/statement-senate-majority-leader-dean-skelos-expansion-dna-databank (03.04.21016).
33. THIBEDEAU, A., National Forensic DNA Databases 2011, available at http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/dnadata/fullreport.pdf (12.04.2016).
34. VOEGELI, P. & HAAS, C. & KRATZER, A. & BÄR, W., Evaluation of the 4-Year Test Period of the Swiss DNA Database, (2006) 1288 International Congress Series, p. 731.
35. WALLACE, H., The UK National DNA Database: Balancing Crime Detection, Human Rights and Privacy”, (2006) 7 EMBO reports, p. 26, available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490298/pdf/7400727.pdf, (09.04.2016).
36. WILLIAMS, R. & JOHNSON, P., Inclusiveness, Effectiveness and Intrusiveness: Issues in the Developing Uses of DNA Profiling in Support of Criminal Investigations, (2005) 33 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, p. 545.