Posted on 03/18/2022 5:36:04 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The woman whose DNA from a sexual assault kit was used by San Francisco police to arrest her in an unrelated property crime six years later plans to sue the city, her attorney said Thursday, March 10. Three days earlier, San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin and California State Senator Scott Wiener announced legislation to ensure this invasion of privacy never occurs again.
In February, the San Francisco Police brought a case to Boudin in which the agency used DNA from a sexual assault kit to implicate the victim in an unrelated property crime six years later. Boudin not only refused to try the case, but also quickly denounced the practice of using rape and sexual assault victims’ DNA to attempt to incriminate them. The DA called for an immediate stop to the practice, and suggested he would address the issue in legislation, which he has with the newly proposed Senate Bill 1228: Genetic Privacy for Sexual Assault Victims.
Even so, the attorney for the woman at the center of the lawsuit, who is not being named, said she “has filed notice of a possible federal lawsuit because she feels betrayed by police officers who broke her trust and violated her rights,” according to the Associated Press (AP).
“Victims of sexual assault consent to their DNA collection in order to apprehend the perpetrator, not so that their DNA will be retained in a local law enforcement database permanently to be searched years later,” said Boudin.
When the case was referred to Boudin in February, the San Francisco Police crime lab called the use of sexual assault kit DNA database—which includes children—“standard practice.”
Since then, as reported by the Associated Press, San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott says he’s discovered 17 crime victim profiles, 11 of them from rape kits, that were matched using a crime victims database during unrelated investigations. The police chief said he believes the only arrest made from the database is of the woman who is planning to sue the city.
The crime lab stopped leveraging the crime victims database shortly after receiving the complaint from Boudin. And now, if Senate Bill 1228 is passed, it will be illegal for any crime lab in California to do so in the future.
Senate Bill 1228: Genetic Privacy for Sexual Assault Victims SB 1228 would prohibit law enforcement from retaining the DNA profile of sexual assault survivor in a searchable database that could be searched for reasons unrelated to the sexual assault. The profile would only be lawfully allowed for use in identifying the perpetrator of the sexual assault.
Federal law already prohibits the inclusion of victims’ DNA in CODIS; however, there is no corresponding California state law. This legislation would remedy that, and even build upon it.
In sexual assault cases, often the DNA of people close to the victim, such as a roommate or consensual partner, is also collected in order to eliminate them as suspects. SB 1228 specifically prohibits law enforcement from storing and using the DNA of survivors’ close contacts in unrelated investigations, as well.
“Victims of sexual assault should be encouraged and supported in coming forward to undergo sexual assault examinations to identify their perpetrator. Instead, the practice by a police crime lab that my office exposed treats victims like criminals. It not only violates their privacy, but it dissuades victims from reporting sexual violence—which makes us all less safe,” said Boudin.
Sexual assault is significantly under-reported, with less than a quarter of sexual assault survivors reporting the crime to the police. Of those survivors who do report, only a small percentage undergo the highly invasive process of sexual assault testing. Additionally, a crime victims database specific to sexual assault victims disproportionally impacts marginalized communities.
Research shows that Black women are disproportionately impacted by sexual violence and are particularly reluctant to report sexual violence to the police. Members of the LGBTQIA community are also disproportionately impacted by sexual assault and face additional barriers to reporting these crimes.
SB 1228 would also instruct the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code to study whether additional steps are needed to protect the privacy of Californians who have submitted DNA samples to law enforcement, and to determine whether a forensic oversight board is needed. Forensic oversight boards exist in other states, including Massachusetts, New York and Texas.
Minority report?
In more ways than one.
“Black women are disproportionately impacted by sexual violence. Members of the LGBTQIA community are also disproportionately impacted by sexual assault”
By whom?
“standard practice”
__________
Until the general public learned of the practice.
Then the practice somehow lost its lustre.
Standard practice! They are not allowed to use fingerprints like that—how could they even *think* of using DNA from a victim!
“ By whom?”
Teens
Some people have flat out never learned the part about the ends not justifying the means.
Seems to me the solution would be, don’t be a criminal.
That’s like saying you shouldn’t care if you’ve got nothing to hide.
Most likely they identified the match, abd then pieced together an investigation that led to them obtaining an independent DNA sample that they knew in advance would be a match.
The “Fruit of the Poison Tree” doctrine is probably the one that was applied here. Thing is, as a criminal defendant, your attorney has to have a few brain cells to rub together to put two and two together and figure out that something hinky is afoot and that poison fruit might be being used.
This defendant got lucky when the house of cards that was this “standard practice” fell to pieces.
“Some people have flat out never learned the part about the ends not justifying the means.”
What is that part? Generally speaking, if the end doesn’t justify the means, what does?
“...don’t be a criminal.”
Do you mean like don’t participate in a peaceful protest against an election you believe was stolen?
It’s unfortunate she was the victim of a crime, but it sounds like her dna became evidence, and unless she petitioned the court to hide her dna, it was in the hands of the crime lab. What if she was driving a car when she became a victim and the police traced that car back to a crime, would that be an invasion of her privacy? What if the cop recognized her face from a photo from a previous crime, would that be an invasion of privacy? What if she disappeared and years later her remains were identified from the DNA collected when she was a crime victim? As science advances, there is going to be growing pains over what is, and what is not confidential, but it is sad to see people on a site that would suggest critical thinking taking sides with the media and a pro-criminal DA simply because he is attacking the police.
If you don’t mind me answering a question with a question, at least to start with, what is your reaction to or understanding of the phrase “By any means necessary”?
4th Amendment.
Get a warrant.
I’m surprised they haven’t started taking DNA samples from newborns and creating a nation wide database......
You’re right, but the supremes have already ruled on exigency. Whether we like that ruling or not, we have to live with it until it is remedied.
Please elaborate?
My mistake, for some reason I was thinking of a different thread. But in this case it’s no longer hers to declare privacy over. If you turn over evidence to the police it belongs to them until a court orders it destroyed. I’ll go back to the license plate scenario, it is simplistic, but would the cops need a warrant to check if the car was involved in other crimes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.