sheesh!

[singingfalls]

http://fusion.net/story/215204/law-e...customers-dna/


http://www.wired.com/2015/10/familia...rime-suspects/

[keigh]

His father's DNA made him a suspect as the crime scene DNA was a close match to the father, and but Usry's DNA proved he wasn't the man whose DNA the police were after. DNA is a marvelous thing. But Sheesh is a good comment.

[MMaddi]

His father's DNA made him a suspect as the crime scene DNA was a close match to the father, and but Usry's DNA proved he wasn't the man whose DNA the police were after. DNA is a marvelous thing. But Sheesh is a good comment.

I've bolded your statement, which exactly summarizes what went on in this case. The system worked as it should.

The police searched the database for a close match and found it. They got a judge to issue a subpoena, which was honored. The police tested Usry's DNA and that ruled him out as a suspect.

So, it was a burden on Usry, but the DNA proved that he wasn't the man they were looking for. If he had been the man they were looking for, the DNA would have been the evidence used to convict a man who committed a crime.

Everything in this process was legitimate, so I don't understand how someone could object to it. If someone feels uneasy about their results in a public database being subject to police scrutiny, there's a simple solution. Don't put your results in a public database.

[lgmayka]

The system worked as it should.

No, it did not.

- The police made use of a self-serving incompetent "expert" who claimed that the match was very close. That's how the police got their warrant. In actuality, the match's common ancestor may have lived thousands of years ago.

- The police lied and tricked the man into giving a blood sample without a lawyer present (who could conceivably have challenged the warrant). Under current precedent, the police can lie and trick you into coming to the station, then lock you up and taser you in order to extract a blood sample.

You are correct, though, that law enforcement abuses such as these are not limited to DNA testing.

[MMaddi]

No, it did not.

- The police made use of a self-serving incompetent "expert" who claimed that the match was very close. That's how the police got their warrant. In actuality, the match's common ancestor may have lived thousands of years ago.

Yes, they basically wasted their time and money listening to someone's allegedly expert advice, when the advice wasn't very good. Law enforcement agencies need to find experts who know how to interpret yDNA and autosomal test results correctly, not just CODIS results. When used properly, yDNA and close autosomal matches can either find the right suspect or rule out an innocent person, but they need to listen to someone who knows what the results mean. If they're not just interested in closing a case by arresting/convicting anyone, then they'll do a proper investigation to get the real criminal off the street before he commits another crime. I think most police officers want to do that and not just close a case.

- The police lied and tricked the man into giving a blood sample without a lawyer present (who could conceivably have challenged the warrant). Under current precedent, the police can lie and trick you into coming to the station, then lock you up and taser you in order to extract a blood sample.

Believe it or not, the courts have consistently allowed the police to lie to or trick a suspect during the course of questioning, in order to obtain information. Although it doesn't seem very fair, it's not outside the rules of investigation.

However, I wonder how common it is for police to go to the extent of tasering someone merely to get a DNA sample. Do you have any evidence that this is a common practice?

The article you linked to as an example of tasering to obtain a blood sample reported this, "Arizona law allows police to obtain a search warrant for drawing blood from DUI suspects when they refuse the procedure. The department obtained such a warrant for Sewell.

"However, the law does not stipulate the degree of force police may use to enforce such warrants."

So, in the case you cite, they got a warrant to obtain the sample - no problem there, since they went through the necessary legal procedures. I do agree with you that tasering the person to get the sample was excessive force. Tasering was not necessary and may have led to serious damage to his health; there are cases where people with a medical condition have died after being tasered. Two or three policemen could have held down the man to get the blood sample.

You are correct, though, that law enforcement abuses such as these are not limited to DNA testing.

I'm well aware of the abuses by law enforcement agencies against suspects. I was involved in a campaign 20 years ago to get a new trial for a death row inmate, who was the victim of such abuses.

However, my point still stands. If you have any qualms about law enforcement agencies having access to your DNA results in a public database, then don't put them in such a database.

[BBA64]

I've bolded your statement, which exactly summarizes what went on in this case. The system worked as it should.

Nice backtrack from your original quote...

The system did not work as it should. Think of the DNA test this way - matching 36 of 37 markers for R1b is meaningless. It's sort of like saying the description of your car is close to the suspect - red, 4 wheels, 2 doors, Chevy. Well, what year was it made? Chevy has been around for a long while.

[MMaddi]

Nice backtrack from your original quote...

The system did not work as it should. Think of the DNA test this way - matching 36 of 37 markers for R1b is meaningless. It's sort of like saying the description of your car is close to the suspect - red, 4 wheels, 2 doors, Chevy. Well, what year was it made? Chevy has been around for a long while.

Read my post in reply to lgmayka, immediately before your post, more closely. The problem was that they used an "expert" who misled them to believe that it was a close match. Everything else in the process was entirely legal and reasonable. The problem was that they were given bad information by an "expert." Once they did get a DNA sample to compare, it became obvious that the "expert" was not so expert. At that point, the poor man was cleared as a suspect.

Do you disagree?