Woman Sues San Francisco After DNA From Rape Kit was Used to Arrest Her

New York Post ^ | September 13, 2022 | Olivia Land

[nickcarraway]

A woman whose DNA from a rape kit was used by cops to arrest her for an unrelated burglary filed a federal lawsuit against San Francisco on Monday, alleging the police invaded her privacy.

The DNA of the woman, known as Jane Doe, was stored by the SFPD as part of a domestic violence and sexual assault case in 2016. According to her lawyer, Adanté Pointer, the same sample was used to charge her with retail theft five years later.

The lawsuit claims that the victim’s DNA was entered without her knowledge or consent into a database used to identify perpetrators in other crimes.

[taxcontrol]

So what do you folks think the odds of her winning?

[Rurudyne]

Some smart lawyer could try to argue that a person’s DNA from those samples is like their private papers under such circumstances, requiring a warrant.

[Irenic]

This will drive women away from reporting rape. She should win.

[HamiltonJay]

Interesting case.

I turn over evidence where I am a.victim to help catch my perpetrator and part of it, incidental to why I turned it over and not what it was turned over for , it is used as evidence of a prior unrelated crime….

Her DNA was not given as evidence of her crime but secondary… given to provide evidence of her assailant.

I would think she’s got a strong argument…

Sample was offered to provide her assailants dna… using her own is completely outside the scope of the providing…

Guess we will see how this goes…

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

This is sort of like the "background check" they do if you buy a gun. It is suppose to be deleted after a certain amount of time.

It isn't.

While some may applaud this as a "yay they caught a thief" remember that if you are a victim of a crime they will be taking your DNA and placing it in a data base. Where it will stay. Forever.

Personally I do not find the idea that if your DNA, finger prints, blood type or other personal data is taken, for reasons other then you being a suspect, the government gets to keep it and can flip through it when ever they wish acceptable.

[Billthedrill]

Fairly good, at a guess. Submission of one's DNA for one purpose does not constitute a blank check for its use for others, I suspect. If it did, we'd have a real privacy problem should the government get its hands on, say, the DNA databases of 23 and Me or Ancestry.com. OTOH, perhaps we do have that problem.

All speculation on my part - I am not an attorney. (I have a soul).

[hinckley buzzard]

Idk what she is suing for, but she has a point.

[MayflowerMadam]

“I would think she’s got a strong argument…”

Agree.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Don’t prosecute her.

Just give the burglary victim a baseball bat and five minutes alone with her while she is tied to a chair.

[The Louiswu]

So if I give my fingerprints for one case then they can ONLY be used for that case and no others? Same with mug shots, shoe prints, etc?

[9422WMR]

Example of the old double edged sword! The evidence cuts both ways!

[OneVike]

I am confused, I thought crimes involving money less than $1000 is not a reason to arrest ar charge anyone in California.

[Political Junkie Too]

She should have a good case on several points:

1. As a victim in a crime, she gave her DNA for investigative purposes. In the employment world, at least, "personally identifiable information" can only be used for the purpose that it was obtained. In this case, it is for the purpose of identifying the rapist. The DNA should have been destroyed after all the appeals were done, and not be used for any other purposes.
2. There is a general disgust for the criminal justice system victimizing the victims of crimes. Even a shoplifter has a right to not be raped and right to the full access of the law and the courts.
3. There is a fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination. DNA taken as evidence in a rape case is tainted fruit if used to prosecute a shoplift that took place years earlier, since the woman gave the DNA as the victim of a crime and not given the opportunity to assert her 5th amendment protection against providing the DNA for the shoplifting case.

-PJ

[flamberge]

So what do you folks think the odds of her winning?

Zero.

The government will not relinquish this sort of capability no matter what the judges or the law might say. It is just too powerful to let it go. If necessary, they will keep appealing until long after the plaintiff has passed away from natual causes.

And the government already has access to the DNA databases of companies like 23 & Me. All they need do is ask them to cooperate and they will. Maybe they will ask for a warrant to keep up the pretenses of privacy.

[AnalogReigns]

Exact situation from a Law & Order SVU episode I saw this summer.

A woman was raped—then later was suspected for a crime—and the lab-tech leaked her DNA to the criminal division.

Life imitates art!

On TV the criminal case was thrown out forthwith...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

CODIS is forever.

[TexasGator]

“I am confused,”

I pointed that out to you on another thread a few minutes ago.

[TexasGator]

“The government will not relinquish this sort of capability “

We know you didn’t read the article!

[PAR35]

I guess this thread will smoke out the folks that are pro-burglary.