In a landmark decision announced last week, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officials in Maryland could legally obtain DNA from people suspected of serious or violent crime.
While the Maryland law has not yet been implemented in Mississippi, local law enforcement and those in the legal profession are voicing their opinions about how the ruling could affect Mississippians.
Chadd Garnett, chief deputy for the Oktibbeha County Sheriff’s Department, said he is in complete agreement with the Court’s decision.
“I think it’s a great idea and I would love to be able to see everybody be able to do it,” he said.
By creating a DNA database along the lines of the current fingerprint database maintained by the National Crime Information Center, the burden on law enforcement could potentially be lightened, Garnett said.
“It could help on the cold cases. If you had everybody who has ever come through the Oktibbeha County Jail and you had their DNA, you could compare it to any evidence that you had and maybe close that case out,” Garnett said. ” It would make an investigator’s job easier if he was working a case that had DNA involved where he wouldn’t have to go through the search warrant process, then locate the suspect and then get the DNA from them. It would speed that process up.”
However, Garnett voiced concerns over how the suspect’s DNA would be stored.
“My only concern is, personally, in our department we don’t have the area to do the storage. If you’re not going to store, you have to process it which is very expensive.”
It is an issue that hasn’t escaped the notice of Starkville Chief of Police David Lindley.
“You’re going to have to have a way to store this where it will be of some use,” Lindley said. “The logistics of that, as far as I can tell, have not been worked out yet.”
While Lindley said having someone’s DNA on file could be beneficial in an investigation, it would not be a cure-all when it comes to solving cases.
“It would give law enforcement a better tool in solving crimes that involved DNA such a sexual assault or anything that deals with bodily fluids or tissue samples, but I think it’s a just another tool in the box. It’s just like fingerprints. It’s something that will be a resource but not necessarily be a cure-all.”
Mixed feelings
Columbus public defender Carrie Jourdan expressed her concern over the Maryland law and whether the Court’s ruling is in the best interest of preserving civil liberties.
“In all honesty, I’m torn,” Jourdan said. ” On the one hand, I do understand their reasoning. It’s not particularly invasive. There already exists probable cause to arrest. There is already a DNA database. So, essentially, it would lead to greater efficiency in solving crimes and reduce the likelihood of innocent people being convicted.
“That sounds great, but on the other side of the coin it frightens me that this kind of government monitoring is becoming more and more present in our lives, more or more Orwellian if you will.”
Referencing the recent information that the government has been monitoring American’s phone calls and internet activity through a program called PRISM, Jourdan questioned how far the government is willing to push the envelope.
“Think about this: This week we found out about Verizon. There were the AP subpoenas a couple weeks before that and now, in a routine arrest, your DNA is going to be taken and made a part of a huge data base. It increases the government’s ability to monitor the average American citizen.
“We’re rapidly approaching a point where we’re going to have to make some hard decisions about reining the government in or risk becoming a police state. I think we’re halfway there and most people don’t know it because it’s so unobtrusive.
“The argument is, ‘You have nothing to fear if you’re not breaking the law,’ but we’ve never justified bad government behavior by saying the ends justify the means.”
Another tool in the box
Columbus Chief of Police and former investigator Selvain McQueen said although some may view collecting DNA as an infringement, he sees it as an invaluable tool to solving violent crimes.
“Although it will be viewed as an infringement upon Constitutional rights by some, access to more DNA profiles will be an advantage when solving violent crimes such as murders and rapes,” he said.
McQueen said the CPD is currently drafting a policy pertaining to the Supreme Court decision.
“A policy is currently being drafted regarding the collection of buccal swabs at the time of booking a subject involved in a felony,” McQueen said.” This policy will be reviewed by command staff and the city attorney.”
Starkville-based criminal defense attorney Jeff Hosford said it was his understanding that the law only pertained to “violent” or “serious” offenses.
“My guess is if you got charged with DUI or a speeding ticket you probably wouldn’t fall under this law,” he said.
However, Hosford said, the wording of the decision was ambiguous and left room for interpretation.
“The decision says ‘serious or violent offenses’ but they don’t really define that, so it’s going to be interesting to see how that plays out in court.”
Hosford questioned how the average American would feel about having their DNA obtained without their permission.
“What if it was you? What if you hadn’t done anything wrong? As far as people in general, if you get accused of something, based on this law, even if you’re not convicted, they can take you DNA if you get arrested,” he said.
Fourth Amendment issues
Hosford said he interpreted the law to say the DNA could only be used for identity purposes, not investigative purposes. He said he felt the Supreme Court ruled for the state of Maryland because obtaining DNA for identity without a warrant is not as damning as obtaining DNA without a warrant for an investigation.
“Based on the Supreme Court history, identifying is not as serious as an investigative search, so what the prevailing side said is it’s used to identify, not investigate. With investigative searches you have to have reasonable cause.”
He questioned what would happen if someone’s DNA positively identified them in connection with a crime.
“The question is: Could they take your DNA and continue to use it? At the end the day it basically impeded an individual’s Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure,” he said.
Based on his research and understanding of the Supreme Court ruling, Hosford said he was opposed to law enforcement being able to obtain DNA without a warrant.
“The police departments will love it, but I don’t’ believe it’s needed based on what they have today. If they’re truly using it for identity purposes, what they have available today is more than sufficient.”
Locally, Chief Lindley said he does not see the process becoming a part of SPD’s standard procedures. He said the department will work towards that goal but currently, they do not have the resources.
“You’ve got to have some way to store them and get them to the database,” Lindley said. “Those things have yet to be determined so I don’t think or anticipate that we’ll start that at this time. Certainly we’ll work towards that in the future but we don’t have any plans at this time to make it a standard part of our booking process.”
Sarah Fowler covered crime, education and community related events for The Dispatch.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 37 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.