Your Base Pairs, Please

The New York Times' cover story this morning looks at the small town of Truro, Massachusetts, where police are seeking to solve a three-year-old murder by asking for voluntary DNA samples from every man in town. (Presumed Innocent notwithstanding, they're figuring semen found on the victim's body points to a male perpetrator.)

Fine to the extent that it's genuinely voluntary, one supposes, except that the story quotes one officer as saying that police are "trying to find that person who has something to hide," and suggests that those who refuse to provide those "voluntary" samples will find themselves under close scrutiny. My intuition is that this would probably pass muster in court, but it certainly feels like it's brushing up against the boundaries of the Fifth Amendment.

Comments

[Dano]

Seal off the island!!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

My lowest contempt is towards those who submit to the collection. Talk about sheeple.

[Native NYer]

Is this town near Arkham, Mass?

[joe]

Yeah, I guess you could take the opportunity to say "Screw you, pig" and feel thrillingly transgressive for a few minutes...

Or you could perform a small act that might help bring the guy who butchered and innocent woman in front of her two year old to justice.

Strange priorities.

[SR]

"Or you could perform a small act that might help bring the guy who butchered and innocent woman in front of her two year old to justice."

Uh, joe, the only person who will "help bring the guy . . . to justice" by giving a DNA sample is the perpetrator himself. Anybody else giving a sample isn't helping at all.

[db]

Wow. I'm not sure what else to say. What's the population of this town? This will only work for the police if a large fraction of the male population consent to this. Otherwise, they're left with placing "close scrutiny" on a large number of men. I bet they don't have the resources to do that, what with all the other important scrutiny they have to do already.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Anybody else giving a sample isn't helping at all.

I have no opinion on this matter, but actually, if it's certain that the pool of suspects is limited to a known group of males, you are helping if they don't get a match, by removing yourself from the pool and allowing the cops to narrow their search. (I'd doubt there's much certainty the pool actually is limited in this way, but if it were...)

[Gary Gunnels]

General William Devereaux: Twelve hours after the President gives the order we can be on the ground. One light infantry division of 10,700 men, elements of the Rapid Deployment Force, Special Forces, Delta, APCs, helicopters, tanks and of course the ubiquitous M-16 A1 assault rifle. A humble enough weapon until you see it in the hands of a man outside your local bowling alley or 7-11. It will be noisy, it will be scary and it will not be mistaken for a VFW parade.

From "The Siege"

[Call me snake]

Truro is a cool little town a few miles from provincetown on the Cape. A great nine hole golf course overlooking the water. And a DA/Police who piss on the bill of rights and abuse prosecutorial power similar to many other areas of the US.

[dwb]

joe,

I know we're all supposed to do our duty to the community and band together to make it safer or whatever, but come on. This is plainly not going to work. It will create an adversarial relationship between the police and the townspeople. And who's to say the person is even still anywhere near the town? Regardless of throwing out the principle of presumed innocence, it fails the practicality test as well.

[Ruthless]

How much longer before a full DNA read-out comes at no extra charge with a Reason subscription?

The sooner the better.

[joe]

"Uh, joe, the only person who will "help bring the guy . . . to justice" by giving a DNA sample is the perpetrator himself. Anybody else giving a sample isn't helping at all."

Eliminating suspects is a big part of an investigation.

dwb, why will this plaintly not work?

If the murderer is NOT a man who lives in town, that's a useful bit of information for the police to have.

[db]

joe,

If the murderer is NOT a man who lives in town, this little project will have narrowed down the list of suspects to, oh, say, about 50,000,000 other men. Good work, chief! Keep it up, I'm sure we'll find the bad guy any day now.

[Gary Gunnels]

db,

Its all part of the master plan to eventually force everyone to keep their DNA on file. 🙁

[joe]

db, the investigation has led the police to believe the killer is a man living in town. You don't think it's worth testing that hypothesis?

Cripes, the silly lengths you people will go to...

[Mr. Nice Guy]

joe:

You're really outdoing yourself. You don't consider police intimidating perfectly innocent people to sumbit to genetic testing remotely fascist?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"submit"..

[SR]

joe, it really does little to nothing to narrow the pool of suspects. As was already pointed out, the killer may not even be a local (indeed, if the police so obviously have no idea who the killer is, then he probably wasn't a local in the first place). Also, you're presuming the man who had sex with her is the killer, which also isn't necessarily true.

[db]

I don't think it's worth creating a climate of mistrust between the authorities and the populace.

Consider this: let's say that there are 100 men in this town. Further assume that 70 of them are willing to provide DNA samples. For how long will the police place the remaining 30 under scrutiny? What will this scrutiny entail? What do they plan to do once they've ruled out 70? What behavioral patterns will they expect to see in the guilty party? What evidence will they eventually use to press charges in the event that the investigation leads to narrowing down the list? What if a man gets a job in another town and moves away? Wouldn't that be suspicious? Doesn't this sound like it will turn into a very long, open-ended wild-goose chase in which the private lives of many innocent and principled citizens may be invaded?

How would you like to be under close police scrutiny merely for resisting an action that you believe to be wrong? Police are very good at finding something for which to arrest a person, when they want an excuse to search their posessions.

I still don't see how this will really help, regardless of the ideological implications.

[Call me snake]

This conversation has once and for all cemented joe's collectivist tendencies...In the state we trust. Even a state where local FBI agents run interference for murderers (i.e.,Whitey) and public projects are so excessive they insult the concept of a boondoggle.

That, or joe's just being "contrarian."

[Warren]

joe,
Have you considdered that maybe, in addition to(or even, more than) solving this crime, that their objective is to create a DNA database. I'm sure your local cops would like to have your fingerprints and DNA on file.

[Carib Expat]

Joe's Great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather to Sam Adams prior to the Boston Tea Party: "It's just a small tax. Cripes, the silly lengths you people will go to..."

[thoreau]

joe-

If I lived in that town, I would gladly give a DNA sample under one (very big) condition: After they confirm that I'm not the suspect they not retain my DNA profile in their databases.

[recovering philadelphia lawyer]

The police better be careful following this line of reasoning. A few years ago in Philadelphia a young woman was sexually assaulted and murdered while jogging on deserted streets at dawn. The cops recovered DNA samples and quickly arrested two suspects who made incriminating statements. Case (and investigation) closed. A few weeks later the DNA results came back (analysis took a while in those days). No match. Turned out the woman had had consensual sex the night before and the creeps who had sexually assaulted her had not ejaculated. Her partner never came forward (it was rumored he was a married man protecting himself). The suspects recanted their statements, claimed coercion, and their lawyers raised various doubts with the jury and they walked. Remember: DNA evidence alone does not necessarily identify the guilty party.

[Junyo]

Have you considdered that maybe, in addition to(or even, more than) solving this crime, that their objective is to create a DNA database

That seems to be the core issue. Voluntarily submitting genetic material to eliminate yourself as a suspect is a neutral action, the modern analog of agreeing to be in a lineup. But do you expect the government to just destroy this data after the investigation? What if the crime is never solved, how long would it be retained? And what are the limits to it's use in the future? The uncertainies would make me uneasy, not the concept itself.

[the Truro chief of police]

If I lived in that town, I would gladly give a DNA sample under one (very big) condition: After they confirm that I'm not the suspect they not retain my DNA profile in their databases.

What? Why? Is there some OTHER crime you're guilty of, son? We'll get you, sooner or later....

[joe]

Warren, I think they want to send your DNA to Roswell so the aliens can select the highest quality stock for their breeding program. Black helicopter territory here, people.

"As was already pointed out, the killer may not even be a local..."

Or, he might be a local. In fact, the police suspect that he is.

thoreau, I think that would be a good idea.

[trumpetrousers]

Some things I thought of:

1. The case is "three years old" so it seems to me that the police have probably exhausted every other lead they had and are now grasping at straws, so assuming that this is an example of the police "pissing on the Bill of Rights" seems a little extreme.

2. Maybe someone can point out to me how this is any different that knocking on doors or going through the phone book and asking questions about people's whereabouts at the time of the murder. Although my knowledge of police procedures admittedly comes mostly from CSI I believe that this is called "canvassing" and is a time honored practice in solving crimes. Sure, they're asking for DNA samples rather than just asking questions, but what's the difference really? Anyone who refused to answer a few simple questions regarding the crime would probably be under increased scrutiny anyway. But DNA doesn't lie, and asking for it probably saves the police time spent tracking down false leads. Isn't this just an example of police best allocating their resources?

3. Saying that the project will narrow the list of suspects down to 50,000,000 people, while technically true ignores the fact that the vast majority of crimes are committed by locals, and a good percentage of murders are committed by people who had at least some knowledge of the victim. While it's certainly possible that the killer could have been from out of town, it's probably not all that likely. It's also quite possible that the killer could have fled to Mexico or something as well. Any number of possibilities exist. But if so, what then?

4. Probably what is most disturbing for people is the question of what will be done with the DNA samples once the crime is solved. I doubt very seriously that they will be disposed of and forgotten. They will remain on file for use in further investigations. But again, how is this different from having fingerprints on file? Most people have their fingerprints on file somewhere whether they've ever been arrested or not. Is anyone seriously going to argue that the police shouldn't be using fingerprint evidence?

[too many steves]

Re: The Fifth Amendment, I would point out that this story comes from a town in a State where your refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test results in the automatic suspension of your driver's license.

Not that I have any personal experience in this area.

[Jennifer]

Trumpet-
I'd say DNA is different from a fingerprint. A fingerprint only tells you how many whorls and curves I have on the tips of my fingers; it tells you nothing about my ethnicity, family health history, hair or skin color, genetic predisposition to various ailments. . . .and the list will only grow longer as technology improves. It's like the difference between the cops knowing my phone number versus knowing what I actually say on said phone.

[Phil]

I doubt very seriously that they will be disposed of and forgotten. They will remain on file for use in further investigations.

Super! Now, anyone who contributed can automatically be run through the database everytime a new crime with DNA evidence comes up! I mean, sure, the concept of "probably cause" gets stretched to the breaking point, but on the other hand, it's sure a time-saver!

But again, how is this different from having fingerprints on file? Most people have their fingerprints on file somewhere whether they've ever been arrested or not.

No, they don't.

Is anyone seriously going to argue that the police shouldn't be using fingerprint evidence?

Yes.

[Ball of Confusion]

I'm a little uncomfortable with the notion that "failure to submit to voluntary testing" = "must have something to hide". It seems like it would be easy to push this line of "thinking" quite far. How about voluntary searches of everyone's houses for incriminating evidence? Don't feel like having your house searched by the authorities? Why, do you have something to hide?

thoreau, what level of assurance that they weren't planning to keep your DNA sample would be acceptable? The word of the guy holding the swabs? The stated intent of the police (already given in the article, although not attributed to anyone specifically)? A contract?

I'm a little surprised that they (apparently) didn't at least TRY to insert some neutral 3rd party as the collector & holder of the samples.

[db]

1. The fact that the case is three years old, and that the police are grasping at straws, seems to make it all the more unlikely that the killer is still in the area.

2. This is fundamentally different from canvassing a neighborhood in that they're trying not to obtain evidence and possible tips but to narrow down a list of potential suspects. You are probably watching too much crime TV--the uncooperative witness always seems to be the bad guy, unless there's a "twist you shouldn't miss."

3. Nothing has been added to the argument. The only way this will effectively narrow down the list of suspects is if the actual criminal submits a sample. All it really does is to make uncooperative citizens the target of much more closely focused scrutiny.

4. Most people who haven't committed a crime only have their fingerprints on file if they've applied for a government job, some types of permits, and/or voluntarily submitted them. In the case of the FBI fingerprint database, "Applicant" fingerprints are supposed to be kept separate from the "criminal investigation" fingerprint pool. This is a good protection, but I wonder just how long it will last.

Just a thought: I wonder how long it will be before police will be able to confidently state the race of a suspect based on DNA evidence? Can it be done affordably now?

[mojoe]

Someone stole a roach out of my ashtray. I'm going to have to ask all of you to voluntarily give me a urine sample. If you don't provide me with a sample, you will be considered a "person of interest".

[Pavel]

For a limited time only!: Free cancer screening with every confession of rape.

[Nemo Ignotus]

Of course they'll retain DNA for later use. The US military starting collecting DNA samples to use "to solve the MIA problem," and now it's pretty common for DNA samples to be run against this database.

I'll be surprised if the Truro cops haven't run their sample against that database already.

[dead_elvis]

I don't like this because if this is considered a legitimate investigative tactic, where does it logically end? Are they going to start doing it with every crime? At what jurisdictional level will it stop? If we go down this path, it's not hard to imagine each state and eventually the feds creating and maintaining a vast DNA database of every citizen. As to the cost, well, we know how that usually goes: isn't it worth it to eliminate crime? [hysterical voice]Won't somebody think of the children?!??![/hysterical voice].

I don't like this for the same reason I disagree with the Supreme Court on sobriety checkpoints- if I'm not reasonably suspected of a crime, I should have the right to be left alone. As for gathering evidence, I think it's a logical stretch to say that an absence of relevant evidence equals relevant evidence.

[jbk]

Most people who haven't committed a crime only have their fingerprints on file if...

Actually, you don't have to commit a crime to have your prints on file. You only have to be arrested for one.

[db]

Actually, you don't have to commit a crime to have your prints on file. You only have to be arrested for one.

good point.

[Ironchef]

. . or apply for a teaching certificate. At least in SC.

[Warren]

My fingerprints are on file because I served in the armed forces. Note the irony.

dead elvis, Nemo Ignotus, et al,
Relax, joe says we're just paranoid. Don't you know that suspecting the government of nefarious intent is the equivalent of hiding from the black helicopters.

Roses are red
Violets are blue
I'm schizophrenic
and so am I

[Luisa]

My fingerprints are on file simply because I live in Colorado. They fingerprint you to issue a drivers licence and have for years.

If I were applying today I'd find out whether it truly is mandatory / whether it's a crime to put wax over your finger at the DMV. If anyone knws about this...

If I were a man in Truro I'd submit my DNA if and only if it would be destroyed after matching (yeah, they could lie, but in a small town, I'd probably risk it).

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

If I were a man in Truro I'd submit my DNA if and only if it would be destroyed after matching (yeah, they could lie, but in a small town, I'd probably risk it).

If I were a man in Truro, I'd tell Sgt. Perry to ask his daughter for a sample of my DNA.

Only if he asked, of course.

[Ball of Confusion]

bada-bing!

[rj]

An update is here.

A quick summary of relevant facts:

There are about 2000 residents year round. They previously collected 100 samples. Now, they have "dozens" and have processed 75 of them.

There have been 18 other instances where DNA "sweeps" have been used. One resulted in an arrest... in MA. This was in a nursing home, where an employee raped a resident.

-rj

[Rikurzhen]

Just a thought: I wonder how long it will be before police will be able to confidently state the race of a suspect based on DNA evidence? Can it be done affordably now?

Yes, but only with a "new" analysis; it probably cannot be inferred from the DNA fingerprint data that is kept in a DNA database.

[Rikurzhen]

This kind of story will continue to be a problem until we decide to make a better DNA database.

I wouldn't mind volunteering a sample to a state database if my DNA fingerprint was available to police, but my name/contact info could only be retrieved with a court order such that a good reason is needed to break my anonymity.

[andy]

"Roses are red
Violets are blue
I'm schizophrenic
and so am I"

That has to be the funniest thing i've heard in a while. 🙂

[Dynamist]

joe states one could perform an act which might help while the reporting suggests the Truro atmosphere is such that one must help. The implied premise is that helping others is a duty. Such a duty is unproven. The individual right of choice may be part of the sovereignty the Constitution preserves for each citizen.

The argument that non-cooperation with police makes one a poor citizen is, here, unsound.

[Stevo Darkly]

If this is voluntary, my only concern would be about the disposition of the DNA sample after this case is investigated. It would be tempting to say, "Here's my sample; you can cross me off the suspect list."

Plus I hate to turn down the opportunity to donate a semen sample. (Is that what they need? Or just a cheek scraping or something? That's not as rewarding.)

Hey, for those who object to this as an intrusion on privacy, how about this as a form of protest? Encourage as many men as you can to mail in their samples to the Truro police -- from all across the country. Send a chain e-mail. Let's eliminate as many potential suspects as possible.

(Only my sympathies for the family and the police prevent me from seriously running with this idea.)

[Kevin Carson]

joe,

We live in a culture where the attitude that "only the guilty need fear" and "those with nothing to hide will comply" is shared by ever-increasing parts of the population. In some jurisdictions, such "voluntary" searches are combined with the threat of forcible searches of those who don't "voluntarily" comply. Cops sometimes use the refusal to submit to a request for a "voluntary" search as grounds to request a warrant.

In the contemporary culture, the public is encouraged to idolize "rule-breaking" cops like Dirty Harry as the "good guys," and to see due process restrictions, defense attorneys, and "technicalities" as so much silly fluff that stops the good guys from getting "bad guys" off the streets.

If the cops are presumptively the "good guys" and not to be feared, and it is reasonable for well-meaning individuals to cooperate with such requests, why stop there? If cops cordon off an entire neighborhood and request "voluntary" house to house searches, it's entirely reasonable to cooperate with them so they can narrow down the search to a small number of "questionable characters" without the proper civic spirit. For that matter, why not voluntarily open your bank account, email and websurfing record, and all the other stuff that Poindexter was slobbering over when TIA was in the works? After all, those are the "good guys" and we shouldn't balk at any reasonable request in "good faith" to help them go after the "bad guys."

The whole point of due process restrictions like search warrants is the historic tendency of the state's functionaries to abuse their power in the name of wonderful things like "public safety." A cultural atmosphere where such due process guarantees are only for the "guilty," and the rights of the accused are tantamount to "criminals rights," is a cop's wet dream.

Do you really want to live in a society where the rights of the accused are only for the obviously "guilty," and the rest of us cooperate with the "authorities" without question? Do you really want a society where those who stand on their rights are marginalized and isolated and viewed as enemies of society? Given the militarization of law enforcement and the erosion of "search and seizure" restrictions over the past 30 years, do you really see the forces of uniformed coercion as the underdogs?

[drf]

Kevin:

i had thought that was gaius at first, but then i saw the Capital Letters.
🙂

[Ball of Confusion]

Sorry, Stevo, they're only talking about cheek-swabbing.

[Ball of Confusion]

Police have staked out the dump, the post office and other locations

OK, the post office I can see, cause I'm probably already licking stuff anyway. But the dump? Privacy issues aside, no way am I letting someone swab my mouth at a dump.

[David]

The big problem I have is that people effectively lose their right to say no. The burden is not on the 750 men in Truro to prove their innocence, it is on the government top prove one person's guilt. I've always hated the "if you've got nothing to hide" argument. The self righteous pricks making it know that you can't argue against it without seeming like you do.

And as a getting a court order to view the DNA files, let's not pretend we live in an honest world where such things matter. People will do what they want, and call in favors if they need.

Local and state governments are chock full of officals who like to lord authority over people.

[Ball of Confusion]

Nice post, Kevin Carson.

[Isaac Bartram]

Thank you, Kevin Carson.

[Isaac Bartram]

I can only assume that Truro's city fathers are democrats. No way joe's going to let republicans have his DNA.

[joe]

Kevin, "Cops sometimes use the refusal to submit to a request for a "voluntary" search as grounds to request a warrant."

Cops sometimes use the reactions of people they question, of the refusal to answer questions, as a reason to get a warrant. Does this mean cops shouldn't be allowed to ask people to voluntarily answer their questions?

[Ken]

This is a BIG step up (down?) from:

PAPERS, PAPERS, I NEED TO SEE YOUR PAPERS!!

now it's

DNA, DNA, I NEED TO SEE YOUR DNA!!

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Kevin:

i had thought that was gaius at first, but then i saw the Capital Letters.
🙂

You noted the lack of captial letters, I noted the missing references to Hobbes, Locke or Machiavelli.

[kmw]

You can pry my DNA from my cold, dead hands 🙂

[Rikurzhen]

The problem here is not DNA per se, but the creation of an ad hoc database to solve this particular crime. While people are willing to volunteer to solve this problem, the database will no doubt live on after this incident.

If we're going to have DNA (fingerprint) databases, we ought to be senible enough to build them correctly from the beginning -- thru a legislative process, with open debate or the benefits/risks, etc.

[Isaac Bartram]

Hey joe, what if they wanted to search every house in town for evidence. It'd be voluntary so I know you'd have no trouble with that either.

[drf]

TPG:
good call.

[CodeMonkeySteve]

DNA, fingerprints ... strip searches?

The principal defended the action, saying it has been done before and may be done again.
She says nobody objected to it -- because they all wanted to clear their name.

[Ball of Confusion]

The parent who pulled her kids out of the school over that is really teaching them the wrong appreciation for cooperating with authorities for the greater good. I'm thinking she has something to hide.

[Stevo Darkly]

Sorry, Stevo, they're only talking about cheek-swabbing.

Blast! Now what am I to do with all this semen I was going to donate? I've got six gallons of it out in the car!

[Kevin Carson]

Thomas Paine's Goiter,

Nevermind those other people. I blame Hegel.

joe,

I don't necessarily object to cops answering questions. But I've had my own share of contact with cops who look me over like I was a $20 bill with Donald Duck on it, while asking a lot of questions about my workplace, destination, etc.--all during a stop on the ostensible pretext of a burnt-out headlight. And sometimes with a few gratuitious comments on my political bumper stickers. And given the fact that they're heavily armed, and view as enemies people who make a big fuss about standing on their legal rights, and that barring video footage no court will take my word over theirs about what happened if I get the shit beat out of me-- Given all these things, I resent it mightily. I don't like dealing with bullies who know they make people afraid and enjoy the feeling.

BTW, I don't think equating Warren's fears with Area 51 lunacy is playing very clean. The police state has a long and venerable history of acquiring powers for one ostensible purpose, and then using those powers once acquired for all sorts of other purposes--just look at the abuse of RICO (if the abuse of inherently abusive powers isn't redundant).

Cops have a professional culture that encourages ransacking the record of someone they "know" is guilty to find any minor offense they can use as pretext for a warrant, so that they can get a chance to find what they're *really* after. And for some, even this professional culture of adhering to the letter of due process isn't enough--they violate the spirit as well, by planting evidence on those they "know" are guilty.

Civil libertaries depend on wariness and vigilance toward the government. Encouraging a culture in which people are peer-pressured into "voluntarily" relinquishing their rights, so that non-compliers can be isolated for special treatment, is destructive of the social environment necessary for civil liberty to have any real meaning. The burden of suspicion should fall on those who want us to "voluntarily" relinquish our legitimate rights, not on those who fail to "volunteer."

Fuck all this "only the guilty need fear" bullshit. Nobody with good or honest intentions should see our constitutional rights as a hindrance. Anybody who sees the requirement for a search warrant as an obstacle to his purposes, deserves some scrutiny into what his purposes really are.

[PintofStout]

kmw,

Funniest. Post. Ever.

Comic Book Guy

[Ball of Confusion]

Now what am I to do with all this semen I was going to donate? I've got six gallons of it out in the car!

My advice: drive carefully, and hope you don't get pulled over for a busted headlight.

[Jennifer]

Six gallons! Christ, Stevo, did you join that Columbia House Porn Club I saw on Fark?

http://www.nypost.com/business/38078.htm?ch

[Ball of Confusion]

Quite prolific, in a very literal sense.

[Jennifer]

Speaking of which, Fark just linked to this story in the Boston Globe. I think the sarcastic headline syas it all:

Clueless police hoping murderer will voluntarily submit DNA sample

[db]

Kevin Carson:

Great post (first one).

"Please place your hands inside the yellow circles. Thank you for your cooperation."

[Ball of Confusion]

Fifth Element?

[Stevo Darkly]

Confession: My "six gallons" post was stolen from a Monty Python sketch with a somewhat different topic. ("I'd like to donate some urine, please.")

[martin]

"Voluntary" DNA sweeps have been used several times in my country with good success. Usually they are reserved for the emotionally wrenching, highly publicised cases involving children or sex crimes. There has been a lot of debate, but the courts went along.
What is my country? Germany.
I hope the Germans' memories will not prove to have been too short. As everywhere else the German Government continually seeks to enhance it's powers.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Are they going to test the cops too?