UK Police Promise Not To Retain DNA Data, But Do Anyway 372
redalien writes "In 2008 I invited two policemen into my home and voluntarily gave them a DNA and fingerprint sample to help with a murder investigation, as they'd promised it would only be used for that investigation. I was never under any suspicion and could just as easily have said no. Almost a year after the investigation closed they have now confirmed that they've retained my samples and at my request have begun an investigation to see if there are sufficient 'exceptional circumstances' to remove them. I'm not the only one who was told samples would be removed, so if you've had such a promise from the police I recommend contacting their data protection registrar immediately."
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Not you friend. (Score:1, Informative)
You must understand despite what you have been led to believe the police are not your friend. They are a necessary evil. Never trust them or allow them into your home without a warrant. Limit your responses to them simple yes or no if you are forced to talk with them.
A policeman's job is to arrest people and put them in jail. They understand this quite well. You must as well.
Re:You believed them when the promised? (Score:5, Informative)
Just replace "don't talk to the police" [youtube.com] with "don't provide DNA/etc voluntarily to the police." You don't gain anything by talking to the police nor providing genetic evidence without a proper warrant. Different reasons same good advice.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
When will people learn... (Score:3, Informative)
WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!! (Score:5, Informative)
If you talk to the police without consul, during an investigation you have waived your rights and demonstrated to the police that you are an idiot, not honest or friendly. They are not your friends. The do not have to tell you the truth. When asked to waive my rights by an officer of the law I respectfully tell them that I am unable to waive them without the advice of an attorney. That pisses them off and they usually start threatening warrants and other harassment.
"With respect for your position sir, I respectfully decline any more communication without an attorney present, and understand you have a job to do, please proceed with what you have to do. Am I under arrest or are you detaining me? If so please provide consul. If not have a nice day!"
its on record till your 100th birthday (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately the Police are under no obligation to remove the DNA from the database until your 100th birthday I've read through the regulations they work under. In the appendix there are form letters for the chief constable to tell you that your dna can not be removed, there is no example of a letter saying it can.
In the UK the police retain records of everyone even if you have never been arrested or charged with anything it is enough to be associated with someone with a criminal record for this to be recorded on your record. I believe they refer to these as non arrestable offenses. I say your record but its the polices record of you. Over time the Police are not forced to share what they have on you with other agencies but everything is kept on record for their use and they do have the option of clearing your record once you reach the age of 100.
Of course your Dna will not only identify you but close matches may suggest a brother or a son or other close relative may be worth investigating. There is no political will from either of the main parties to curb the current legislation they have both contributed to it. So you either live with it or leave and hope that there is no worldwide database created in your lifetime.
Rule number one where ever you are don't get involved with the Police if you can possibly avoid it.
http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539482 [genewatch.org]
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/events-conferences/econferences/ethnic-profiling-in-uk-law-enforcement/the-report/the-national-dna-database/the-national-dna-database-2.html [runnymedetrust.org]
The second link spells it out for you using big letters and crayon, yes you are on record and for all practical meanings of for the rest of your life.
The European Court of Human Rights
In December 2008, in the case of S. and Marper v. the UK, the Grand Chamber of European Court of Human Rights reached a unanimous judgment that the blanket retention of innocent people's DNA and fingerprints by the UK Government contravenes Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to privacy).
At the time of writing, the Government has yet to implement a response to the judgment. Its initial proposals to retain DNA records from innocent people for 6 or 12 years, depending on the offence for which they were arrested, were widely criticised. They have been replaced with an alternative 6 year retention time for innocent adults (3 years for under-16s), in the Crime and Security Bill 2009/10. However, both opposition parties regard these proposals as unacceptable.. The Government has also made a welcome proposal to destroy the original DNA samples (biological samples), which are currently stored by the commercial laboratories which analyse them, and which contain unlimited genetic information which is not needed for identification purposes.
I guess that this judgment may change things but currently there is no change and it will remain that way until compelled to change. note the opposition fighting against the change it can be viewed as because the proposals are still draconian or more cynically to block any change in the current status quo.
Unless legislation does go through and so far it hasn't then any plea to the chief constable to get the dna record removed due to exceptional circumstances will fall on deaf ears because after all being innocent of any crime is hardly exceptional in that database.
Re:NEVER talk to the police. (Score:3, Informative)
No no no! Let's clear this up once and for all. IANAL but I am a English officer of the law. A PACE caution says "1) You do not have to say anything, 2) but it may harm your defence if you do not mention something that you later rely on in court. 3) Anything you do say may be given in evidence".
In relation to the three points, this means:
1) Exactly what it means. You don't have to say anything. BUT...
2) If you choose not to answer questions during police interviews but later provide answer to the same the questions in court, a judge can direct a jury to consider whether they think you were lying (eg so you have time to make up an answer). A jury are not allowed to do this unless a judge directs them to, which will normally follow legal arguments.
3) Anything you disclose can be brought up in court proceedings.
That's all. There also exists another provision called a Special Warning which can be used under certain limited circumstances. If this happens, you MUST be advised you are being given a special warning and de-warned when questions relating to the topic that the Warning relate to are complete. The difference is that the Police must specifically record that the Warning was given and it is brought to the Judge's attention. Most police don't realise they have these provisions and they are rarely used.
Re:Not the first (Score:5, Informative)
On the bright side there is an increasing consensus that DNA evidence is a lot less useful than CSI: would have us believe.
It makes sense, really - it takes quite a while and a fairly large sample to sequence someone's genome with proper error checking, so the crime labs generally don't bother. Instead, they focus on a few areas of chromosomes called loci, and pick sections of non-coding DNA called short tandem repeats. US labs will normally look at 13 loci, UK labs 10. Many experts have testified in a court of law, under oath, that a match of nine loci is 'tantamount to unique identification'.
Studies have been done on small sections of some DNA databases, comparing every profile with every other profile, and found this to simply be false. In Arizona 65 493 profiles were made available - 122 pairs matched at nine loci, 20 at ten, 1 at eleven and 1 more at twelve. In Illinois 220 000 were checked, and 903 pairs matched at nine or more loci, and in Maryland 30 000 were checked, providing 32 matching pairs.
Add to this the problem that eyelashes, skin fragments etc can be carried on the wind, or from a random frottage, and we have some important cases being 'solved' with what amounts to deeply circumstantial evidence. With any luck this fascination with DNA being used as the be all and end all, the assayer of truth, will end as soon as possible.
PS: most of that informative stuff about loci and short tandem repeats was pretty much lifted from New Scientist #2742, dated 9 January 2010. IANAGeneticist, and would feel a small pang of guilt without adding this disclaimer.
Re:NEVER talk to the police. (Score:3, Informative)
Our American readers need to know that the UK does not have the same Miranda rights as in the US, when you are being arrested.
Specifically, a number of years ago the warnings were changed. Note the difference carefully, and see if you can see how clamming up until a lawyer gets there, might be directly harmful to your freedom.
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
Now, you might think "surely that wouldn't apply to questions they asked you before your lawyer arrived". And that would make sense. But this is the UK we're talking about.
If this failure to mention something occurs at an authorised place of detention (e.g. a police station), the common law stated that no inferences could be drawn from any failure occurring before the accused is allowed an opportunity to consult a legal advisor.
But Section 34 of the 1994 Act reverses the common law position that such failures could not be relied upon.
UK Police are driven by targets (Score:4, Informative)
C'mon, this is the UK police we're talking about: nowadays they're driven by targets that come from the politicians and directly influence their bonuses and career prospects.
Targets have been set by the highest level of government to collect and keep as many DNA samples as possible for the DNA Database, so Bonuses and Promotions are at stake here. They don't give a damn about the citizens they are supposed to serve except as means to reach their targets, so they would tell you whatever you wanted to hear to get another point on their DNA samples target.
Count yourself lucky though: people's lifes have been ruined when they got "Cautions" (an admission of guilt, which requires no court involvement and goes into the Criminal Record) for being drunken and rowdy or for (lightly) discipling their own kids.
I've lived in 3 European countries by now and this is the only one where I don't trust the police (which is kinda sad since I'm from Portugal, a country where people look up to the UK as a better place)
Not that I blame the lowly copper: at the core of the current rot are the power hungry politicians and money driven high-level officers.
I guess that people are getting what they deserve around here: the British electorate keeps voting on the same two sets of visibly lying, deceitfull, sleazy and two-faced politicians (or not voting at all) - these guys are so exceptionally untrustworthy (at least compared with Dutch and Portuguese politicians) that they are caught cheating and lying so often it's not fun anymore.
Re:NEVER talk to the police. (Score:5, Informative)
I've watched the whole thing before, and there are so many items in the video that simply do not apply that the whole thing should be ignored. Hell, the very first frame you see is regarding the Fifth Amendment: We don't have a constitution.
Do you want advice on how to deal with the police in the UK? Go to Citizen's Advice. The internet has some basics, but they're not comprehensive.
Do you want instructions on how to handle arrest? That's easy: Comply. Do nothing to resist. Listen to everything that is said. As soon as you're arrested, say nothing about the reason for your arrest. Not "I didn't do it!" not "It was that guy!" There will be time for this later, after you've spoken to a solicitor.
Confirm personal details at the station, nothing more, and when asked state politely but firmly that you can not answer any questions regarding your arrest or enter an interview room until you have spoken to a professional legal representative. It's because you've not done this before, and want everything to be done right. Law is complex. Late at night (if required) this might be a phone call, but you can still request a solicitor to attend in person. Usually this will be the next day, which is good. Try and get some sleep; You can't go anywhere or do anything, and talking to anyone is a bad idea.
IANAL, IANYL, this is not legal advice etc.
Re:NEVER talk to the police. (Score:5, Informative)
However (and I speak as a recent ex-policeman from the UK), the key is "MAY harm your defence". If you can give good reason in court as to why you didn't disclose it ("I needed to speak to my solicitor first", "I didn't want my wife to find out about my affair", "I was being threatened by the bad guy") the court will take this into account and allow the evidence (or at least give due consideration to your reasoning). I will not automatically exclude the evidence (note the full stop and the word may). Of course this won't apply where you don't have a good reason (i.e. it was to cover your tracks) or if someone is harmed or a further crime committted (you don't give the info giving your acomplice time to kill the hostage and bury the body).
Re:NEVER talk to the police. (Score:3, Informative)
Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 2004 means not giving any evidence which could exonerate you when questioned under caution by a constable (at the scene, prior to formal interview at the station) could affect your ability to move for case dismissal based on that same exonerating evidence you did not mention at the time, and also exonerating evidence can be disregarded if a judge or jury decides that there is a case to answer based upon other evidence heard. Thanks to VShael below for pointing out the relevant legislation: I'd always been curious!
IANAL, this (again) is not legal advice, but I seem to have a gift for reading and interpreting Legalese (My Law tutor said so).
England is not the same as UK (Score:5, Informative)
The headline is incorrect: it's not UK police, it's English Police who hold onto DNA. DNA samples, and profiles, are routinely destroyed at the end of the relevant enquiry in Scotland, which is a quite distinct legal jurisdiction from England.
Re:England is not the same as UK (Score:3, Informative)
Editors: Do your job and edit.
Re:DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE (Score:3, Informative)
You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but I must warn you that if you fail to mention any fact which you rely on in your defence in court, your failure to take this opportunity to mention it may be treated in court as supporting any relevant evidence against you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#England_and_Wales [wikipedia.org]
Re:You believed them when the promised? (Score:3, Informative)
It's almost funny:
I spent a lot of the summer reading about AI and the various problems you can run into trying to train your AI to do a task. Quite often it will find a flaw in your measurement system.
Example: a robotic vacume cleaner which gets points for picking up dust... but no penalty for dumping its dust so it just dumps and picks up the same stuff in a loop.
Now machines do this mindlessly and with no malice.
Humans do the exact same thing knowing fully that they're screwing everyone else.
Re:NEVER talk to the police. (Score:1, Informative)
Sounds to me like you need a new Magna Carta, Part II
Re:British police (Score:1, Informative)
You're right on the money.
Under Thatcher, it was common practice to harass anyone who resembled a 'hippy'. If you had dreadlocks, attended festivals and wore scruffy clothes; you expected the police to come crashing through your window at night. I can't express strongly enough how often and intensely they were 'attacked' by the police. They'd be repeatedly harassed and then accused of being unfit parents for bringing them up in such a dangerous environment where the police keep scaring them at night.
Unfortunately, these cases weren't reported in the media. Read the included article and you'll instantly see the police's mindset and understand why it wasn't reported. Hippies were a national threat.
The Battle of Beanfield. [apc.org]
A video of the Battle of Beanfield. [youtube.com] (contains disturbing scenes).