New Laws Restrict Police Use of DNA Search Method

[elir]

www.nytimes.com/2021/05/31/science/dna-police-laws.html

In general, the restrictions, such as requiring a warrant or only using the technique for murder or sexual assault, are not unreasonable. 

Maryland
1.Cases will need a judge’s signoff before using the method where DNA markers from a crime scene are uploaded to genealogy web sites
2.The technique be used only for serious crimes, such as murder and sexual assault.
3.Investigators may only use websites with strict policies around user consent.
4.When police officers test the DNA of “third parties” — people other than the suspect — they must get consent in writing first, unless a judge approves deceptive collection.
5.Investigators cannot use any of the genetic information collected, whether from the suspect or third parties, to learn about a person’s psychological traits or disease predispositions. At the end of the investigation, all of the genetic and genealogical records that were created for it must be deleted from databases
6.Maryland investigators interested in genetic genealogy must first try their luck with a government-run DNA database, called Codis, whose profiles use far fewer genetic markers.

Montana
AN ACT GENERALLY REVISING WARRANT REQUIREMENTS FOR DNA SEARCH RESULTS; REQUIRING
A WARRANT FOR A SEARCH FROM A CONSUMER DNA DATABASE; REQUIRING A WARRANT FOR A
FAMILIAL DNA SEARCH OR SEARCH RESULTS FROM PARTIAL MATCHING FROM THE STATE DNA
IDENTIFICATION INDEX OR A CONSUMER DNA DATABASE; AND PROVIDING DEFINITIONS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
Section 1. Consumer DNA database searches -- familial DNA searches -- warrant required. (1)
A government entity may not obtain DNA search results from a consumer DNA database:
(a) without a search warrant issued by a court on a finding of probable cause; or
(b) unless the consumer whose information is sought previously waived the consumer's right to
privacy in the information.
(2) A government entity may not obtain familial DNA search results or search results from partial
matching from the DNA identification index or a consumer DNA database without a search warrant issued by a
court on a finding of probable cause.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Consumer DNA database" means a database maintained by a private entity that provides directto-consumer genetic testing services.
(b) "DNA identification index" has the same meaning provided in 44-6-101.
(c) "Familial DNA search" means a search performed of a government or consumer DNA database
using specialized software to detect and statistically rank a list of potential candidates in the DNA database who
may be a close biological relative to the unknown individual contributing the evidence DNA profile. The
specialized software search may be combined with lineage testing to help confirm or refute biological
relatedness.
(d) "Lineage testing" means additional genetic testing used to help confirm or refute biological
relatedness between the known individual in a DNA database and the unknown individual contributing the
evidence DNA profile. Examples of additional genetic testing include but are not limited to:
(i) Y-STR analysis to examine STR patterns specific to the Y-chromosome used to determine
paternally derived relatedness among DNA profiles;
(ii) mtDNA analysis to examine cell mitochondria used to determine maternally derived relatedness; or
(iii) single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping to generate results related to a person's ancestry and
genetic predisposition to health-related topics.
(e) "Partial matching" means a moderate stringency search of a DNA database using routine search
parameters that results in one or more partial matches between single-source and nondegraded DNA profiles
that share at least one allele at each locus, indicating a potential familial relationship between the known
individual in the DNA database and the unknown individual contributing the evidence DNA profile.
Section 2. Codification instruction. [Section 1] is intended to be codified as an integral part of Title
44, chapter 6, part 1, and the provisions of Title 44, chapter 6, part 1, apply to [section 1].

[johnnyhands1]

As I've written on this board in the past, any case worth using genetic genealogy on is worth getting a judge-signed warrant.

[elir]

Agree, Johnnyhands1. Kind of surprised that a judge-signed warrant may not have been required previously in those states. I wonder what the protocol is across the rest of the US?

[f1guyus]

Another example of what Dad used to say. “First you need honest people”.
And absent honest people all the rules in the world don’t matter.

[f1guyus]

If I remember correctly (that’s in doubt these days) the EAR case along with several other cold cases had the pre approval of a panel of judges to use extraordinary methods to snare the various perps. The grim sleeper was another one.

While I’m at it at almost every stage of using DNA to solve crimes there have been politicians standing in the road shouting stop.