Posted on 06/11/2019 9:24:44 AM PDT by FoxInSocks
The way to challenge the DNA from discarded items is to go after chain-of-custody and sample integrity. It should be a pretty easy argument to make that a discarded item pulled from the trash is probably contaminated and that chain-of-custody is difficult to establish.
If there is no family memory of a specific genetic heritage, and thus no cultural connection, why does it matter? Why should I trade in my Liederhosen for a Kilt if I have no cultural connection to Scotland?
That’s not what he’s challenging though. He’s making a novel claim that even though picking up his discarded items is legal (well established case law), they still have to have a warrant to DNA test it.
That’s just ridiculous on it’s face.
I can see the point. There has to be a mechanism for the suspect to raise objections related to chain-of-custody and contamination. The best way to do this would be by requiring a warrant, where the procedures used to guarantee sample integrity and custody can be spelled out and challenged.
Otherwise, you have a circular argument. The state will say that they have a sample, they tested the sample, and they know it belongs to the defendant, because it matches markers that are found in his family DNA. They then say that because they have a sample that matches his family DNA, they can collect a clean sample.
This is a circular argument.
Say, for the sake of argument, they pulled the wrong Starbucks cup out of the trash, and it happens to be from a person distantly related to the suspect, they can make the same argument, and collect DNA without having an actual sample from the suspect.
The suspect has to have the opportunity to make this argument, and the state must be required to demonstrate that they have the correct, uncontaminated DNA.
I return, as always, to the authoritative source for all legal information, the Blue Bloods TV show. In one episode, Detective Reagan takes a cup from the trash of a suspect to test for family DNA, when the suspect had other family members, sharing the same family DNA markers, living in the same house that produced the garbage. Detective Danny should be required to demonstrate how he knew that this particular cup was from this particular individual before he is permitted to analyse the sample.
LOL, Demanding a warrant is an attempt to suppress evidence, not challenging it. A warrant is unnecessary for chain of custody, because that is documented in writing and can be testified to in court where the defendant’s lawyer can question and challenge on cross-exam. That is the mechanism that exists and the courts are not going to revisit this baseless claim.
Generally speaking they pick up the discarded evidence items during surveillance, which is how they know it was his cup or straw. That homeless guy rummaging through the trash as you left is not what he appears to be.
At this point in the game they have 4 sources of DNA matches. The first from the victim at the time of the crime, which was matched to the open DNA database (2nd match), which was used to narrow down to a few or single suspects who were surveilled until they discarded items that might contain their DNA (3rd match). Then the suspect was arrested with a warrant and a warrant for a DNA sample was served and the cheek swab is the 4th and final match.
He wants to move the warrant requirement from match 4 to match 3 while claiming match 2 was insufficient probable cause for a warrant at match 3 so he can suppress them all because 4 in a row is checkmate.
It is my understanding that the DNA Database match can have thousands of potential matches, who share family traits.
This family group is then compared to a list of people in the area and potential suspects to narrow the search to a few people or a single individual.
Yes, they can. But it’s still just basic police work narrowing down the field of suspects by discarding those who don’t match the description or age bracket or geographical location until you only have a few or one left.
That doesn’t invalidate the process nor does it rise to the level of specificity that requires a warrant.
I think that you may be confusing two types of DNA reports. One,an admixture report which is a marketing tool that tells you that you are likely from certain ancient geographical populations. It’s a statistical analysis that tells you to buy the kilt, the lederhosen, or both. It says nothing about family descendants or ancestors. Another set of reports are used to identify specific segments of your 23 chromosomes that you share with other individuals.
My father and his identical twin brother shared 100% of their DNA. They shared 50% of their DNA with their sister. My 1st cousin, daughter of my uncle and I also share 50% of our DNA, but cousins that aren’t children of my uncle share a much lower percentage. Measurements of these shared DNA segments are expressed in Centimorgans. Siblings, and the various degrees of cousins will share some percent of DNA, but since the process is random, distant relations will only share a range of DNA.
I have been studying genealogy for 30 years and have over 63,000 individuals that I have identified through traditional genealogy who are linked through common ancestors or families. That family tree is posted on Ancestry (only the dead ones). I have also taken a DNA test at Ancestry. Ancestry tells me when they find a “cousin” from their vast database. Most of these are assumed to be in the 3d to 6th cousins. I have no idea who most of those people are because the shared segments have been passed down for many generations beyond historical records. However, they can also tell me from my family tree, where Ancestry members share common ancestors based on shared segments of our DNA. Since I have a very good baseline family tree, I can verify these DNA connections and I have found them to be very good. I have compared notes with some of them, but both of us needs to agree. All of us have voluntarily submitted a DNA sample. Submitting our samples to a public database like GEDmatch is another step and an individual decision. I have not done this, but I’m sure that some of my distant cousins have done so. This database is what law enforcement is using and the result that they get is shared DNA segments (in Centimorgans on specific chromosomes). Then the do old fashioned detective work to discover if anyone in the neighborhood where the rape/murder/crime occurred share some DNA segments with the suspect (remember they got his/her sample at the crime scene, usually from semen or blood, not a dixie cup.) So, for criminals who come from a large family who have lived in one neighborhood for generations, they are screwed.
The rapists relatives freely gave their DNA to 23andMe. That gave 23andMe the legal right to share that information. It’s a bit intimidating what that private company can do, but it’s not constitutionally forbidden.
That’s a good point; if you’re mentally and culturally German (in your example), I don’t see that changing anything to discover you’re a Scot instead.
Unless you’re such a racist that you think there is inherent superiority of one race over another or innate characteristics that set us apart. I thought we were supposed to be moving past such primitive racist notions.
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.