NJ Police Used Baby DNA To Investigate Crimes, Lawsuit Claims (theverge.com) 91
New Jersey police may have used blood samples taken from babies to investigate crimes, according to public defenders in the state. From a report: According to a lawsuit filed by the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender (OPD), the practice came to light after a case in which New Jersey State Police successfully subpoenaed a testing lab for a blood sample drawn from a child. Police then performed DNA analysis on the blood sample that reportedly linked the child's father to a crime committed more than 25 years ago. The suspect then became a client of the OPD, which alerted the office to the techniques used to identify the man.
The lawsuit, filed jointly by the OPD and the New Jersey Monitor, now seeks to compel the state of New Jersey to disclose information on the full extent of the practice. All babies born in the state of New Jersey are required to have a blood sample drawn within 48 hours as part of a mandatory testing program that screens them for 60 different disorders. These samples are processed in a state-run lab, which shares data with the state health authority and communicates results to parents. The blood samples are not directly shared with law enforcement agencies. But if police are able to reliably obtain the samples through subpoena, then effectively, the disease screening process is entering all babies born in the state into a DNA database with no ability to opt out.
The lawsuit, filed jointly by the OPD and the New Jersey Monitor, now seeks to compel the state of New Jersey to disclose information on the full extent of the practice. All babies born in the state of New Jersey are required to have a blood sample drawn within 48 hours as part of a mandatory testing program that screens them for 60 different disorders. These samples are processed in a state-run lab, which shares data with the state health authority and communicates results to parents. The blood samples are not directly shared with law enforcement agencies. But if police are able to reliably obtain the samples through subpoena, then effectively, the disease screening process is entering all babies born in the state into a DNA database with no ability to opt out.
Man, I'm glad... (Score:3, Interesting)
No finger/footprints, no DNA samples...hell, I just found out the other day that today's babies are automatically signed up for Social Security numbers at birth?!?!
I didn't apply for mine till in about 8th-9th grade in my typing class, it was a class project.
I wish I'd known enough back then not to sign up for SS.
I could have dodged it and invested all that money myself.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You're as clever as a football bat
Re: (Score:2)
You're as clever as a football bat
That's baseball, dummy!
Re: Man, I'm glad... (Score:2)
You missed the point of the joke
Re: (Score:2)
You're as clever as a football bat
That's baseball, dummy!
It becomes a football hat when you put two beer cans on the sides with a convenient straw.
Re:Man, I'm glad... (Score:5, Insightful)
https://sequoyahsteminstitute.... [sequoyahst...titute.org]
Not mention drink from a cup and throw it in the trash, there's your DNA just available to the cops without your permission. They don't even need a warrant, since once you take garbage to the street it's refuse and can freely be rummaged through. Additionally, it's not like your NOT just sluffing off millions of dna packed cells as your meander around your day.
Either you're a troll baiting responses or you're just blind to reality.
Re: (Score:1)
Either you're a troll baiting responses or you're just blind to reality.
You, good sir, are confusing the reality as it is with the realisation that reality has become such you don't really want to live in it any longer.
Since this reality is made up out of human doings, the fix is to get all those humans doing to change their doings. In other words:
The fix for this is privacy laws.
That, or conclude that society-as-it-is is unfixable and have it break down and collapse back to the stone age, taking the tech down with it.
Re: (Score:3)
The fix for this is privacy laws.
Privacy laws... enacted by the same government that revels in the power these techniques give it? First you would have to find some means of influencing that government.
So if you're a billionaire, you're in with a chance. Otherwise, forget it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Man, I'm glad... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or really? What do you think it means to be "secure in [your] ... papers" means?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers "
Re: Man, I'm glad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and “papers” literally means paper. As in: dead tree. Absolutely nothing on the internet applies. Nothing on a computer applies. Irrelevant to phone calls. And, it applies only to the paper, not the ink on the paper. Same goes for your “person”. That doesn’t count your clothes. Yes, your house is guaranteed to be secure. Nothing in there says anything about your car, your driveway, or even the air you breathe. Those arent your “house”
‘Privacy” its not a word in the constitution. Therefore, no constitutional right to it exists.
Clarence Thomas has made this all abundantly clear, and he speaks for the majority now. Roberts is effectively no longer in charge.
Yes, this is pants-crappingly ridiculous. I disagree intensely with this new way of doing things. But I’m only one vote. The country has decided to go a different direction.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are bigoted idealogists who misrepresent history all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the President's who nominated the right wing Justices consistently become President with a minority of the voters voting for them?
Tyranny of the minority does not sound like democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldnt change this aspect of our system. and I wouldnt trade it for another form of government. It’s kept us together for 300 years.
But it does have it’s problems. This new literalism opens the door to a lot of idiocy. States can now outlaw abortion and contraception. The current co
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, we in the USA are not a democracy, we are a republic.
And that indeed is part of the design that the minority is not run roughshod over with by majority, it is not mob rule.
Presidents are elected by states, not the popular vote.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a Representative Democratic Republic, unlike lets say N. Korea which is also a republic but not representative.
Whether it is 45% imposing their mob rule or 55% imposing their mob rule, it is still mob rule except it is the majority having their rights removed by the minority. Ideally both sides would work together and compromise so no one is getting run over roughshod but the American system seems to be failing to deliver that.
And yes, the States elect the President, still nice when the States refle
Re: (Score:1)
The fix for this is privacy laws.
Ah yes, let's just for the hell of it forget that in this case, it was about identifying the perpetrator of a violent rape:
From TFA:
The State Police had re-opened an investigation into a âoecold caseâ of sexual assault that had occurred in 1996 and had genetically narrowed the suspects to one of three brothers and their male offspring.
Sure, you're all for privacy until it's your daughter that is raped, or your family member that is killed. Then, all of a sudden, all of that goes out of the window.
Re: (Score:2)
And how accurate is DNA, especially with rapists who may have had an affair with the Sister-in-Law.
Re: Man, I'm glad... (Score:2)
Just realize that less and less is needed to figure out the DNA of someone, and soon the DNA will be encoded in your ID card - and the DNA will be in your birth certificate too, which is also having the SSN.
Do the crime, be identified and take the penalty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you are self-employed and get only cash. If you have a job, ss is deducted from your check and an ss number is required from your employer. It's rather difficult to dodge. And let's be serious. You would not have "invested" any of the 6-7% deduction. You would have spent it.
Re: (Score:2)
It IS possible.
Over the past decades, it has become quite a bit more difficult....but it is possible, especially for folks my age and a bit older, that they could have bypassed getting a SS number, and only been issued a Tax ID
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it can't be done and the information is of no practical use to anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
It was easier to refuse to enroll not that many years back
Refusing to "Enroll" does not get you out of being required to make contributions or have the tax witheld and remitted.
Over the past decades, it has become quite a bit more difficult....but it is possible, especially for folks my age and a bit older, that they could have bypassed getting a SS number, and only been issued a Tax ID....that can be used to have taxes deducted via W2 employment, but not SS wage taxes.
US Employers have to withhold FICA; u
Re:Man, I'm glad... (Score:4, Informative)
Only if you are self-employed and get only cash.
Self-employed are actually required to pay More due to not having an employer to cover the other half. Assuming you gross more than $400 total in a year from self-employment - the SECA tax of 15.3%, which is twice as much as FICA that an employee has to pay, And this has to be reported and deposited with the Quarterly estimated tax payments.
Being in a Cash-only business is not a way out of it.. That's a way to get audited. Failure to report Income and pay the Taxes due would be a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Against the law? You don't say! Talk to the guy above me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could have dodged it and invested all that money myself.
You have to have a SS to be employed these days; Or for that matter.. to maintain any kind of individual financial account as a US citizen.. Plus anyone to pay you needs that W4 or W9 with a SSN
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people do it, really? Why? The money still gets taken out of YOUR check and attributed to someone else's number? That makes a lot of sense. Whoever owns that number might be very happy, but you'll be out of luck.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad I was born before all of this crap.
Yes, no "crimes of the father" here. Move along . . .
lawsuit? file an objection to it being used in tri (Score:4, Interesting)
lawsuit? file an objection to it being used in trial!
Have they found the goombah gene? (Score:4, Funny)
A DNA database of everyone born in Jersey? Seriously?
Re:Have they found the goombah gene? (Score:4, Informative)
These samples are stored routinely in order to provide quality assurance (by using leftover samples to set the testing equipment and test out new batches of chemicals) and, with parents' permission, to develop tests for future conditions. In some instances they have also been used after a baby or child passed away from an unknown disease to do additional testing to see if they could determine what the disease might be.
In many states, parents can request the leftover samples be destroyed after initial testing is done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If the subpoena was issued for a specifi baby's DNA, then the police already had probable cause to suspect that baby's father. In other words, this isn't the issue the news media wants you to believe it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I still say this amounts to subverting medical secrecy.
I don't entirely disagree.
But you don't solve a problem by bitching about something entirely different.
Re: Have they found the goombah gene? (Score:2)
Except the law explicitly says as do the medical release forms that these samples will not be used for DNA analysis, law enforcement etc
What about the Judge?! (Score:1)
The summary and article are attacking the PD and looking for protections for the system, but where is the discussion about the Judge who signed this subpoena? Shouldn't they be part of the conversation? Aren't they supposed to be the adult in the room who prevents illegal searches and abuses of power?
Re: (Score:2)
What's illegal about blood samples taken from your descendants? If they are minors and one parent or guardian agree, it's already a moot point. Now, harvesting the DNA for criminal activity creates quite a quandary for the courts. Your relatives can provide enough details voluntarily to get you charged and convicted. [abc7.com] I doubt any judge would disallow the evidence from being used if the state can prove that it wasn't obtained illegally.
Re: (Score:2)
searches without consent? (Score:2)
If my blood is at a lab i would expect laws to protect my blood against searches without my permission. Especially if that blood is taken from a minor who can't even consent.
Re: (Score:3)
I think not only third party [fas.org] doctrine applies here but how do you argue if a family member voluntarily gives up DNA samples?
Big deal? (Score:1)
Do we have a God-given right not to be recorded or something? Did Jesus say nobody can record another person's physical characteristics?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, only a religious exemption keeps you out of the DNA database. Atheists need not apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That is still theism.
Re:Big deal? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not God-given, but it is Consitutional in the 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Now, if you give up that right, such as when you submit your DNA to Ancestry.com or similar, then you're fair game, but babies? Probably not.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, if you give up that right, such as when you submit your DNA to Ancestry.com or similar, then you're fair game
That really should not make it fair game. It's like saying if you ever entrusted a friend with keys to your house to come take care of a pet that it should become fair game for the police to order that friend to hand over the key and allow unlimited warrantless searches of the building at that point.
No.. Allowing a private company access to something is not "Giving up your rights" - It is
Re: (Score:3)
it should become fair game for the police to order that friend to hand over the key and allow unlimited warrantless searches of the building at that point.
If the police demand the key from the friend, they're going to have a warrant. Which means they already have probable cause, and some reason that is plausible to the judge to do it that way instead of some other way.
Which is to say, you have no comprehension of how any of this works. Most people don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the police demand the key from your friend without a warrant, the police aren't the problem, your friend is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're friend's fault if he gives up the key when there's no warrant. He chooses to do so. Because they're just asking. There's no legal requirement without the warrant.
Ask a grown up to explain it to you.
Re: (Score:2)
The above poster said that making your DNA "fair game" when submitting it to Ancestry.com was "like saying if you ever entrusted a friend with keys to your house to come take care of a pet that it should become fair game for the police to order that friend to hand over the key and allow unlimited warrantless searches of the building"
They are saying that allowing police unfettered access to your DNA just because it
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it shouldn't, but it is. Criminals have been caught using this "near relative" genealogical technique. They find a DNA sample. They submit it to ancestry.com or 23andme. It comes back with near relatives, and they do a little research to find the likely suspect. It works, and it is now part of police procedure. So far it has not been denied by the courts. So what I said above is fact. You can disagree all you want, but you can't deny that it is being successfully used.
Re: (Score:3)
It works, and it is now part of police procedure.
Just because "it works" and they use it Does not mean their actions are not a violation of fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.
So far it has not been denied by the courts.
Just bc courts haven't impeded it does Not mean it isn't a violation of fundamental rights.
Police can literally break into your house [forbes.com] and steal $225,000 worth of stuff for their own personal use, and the courts will shield them (Qualified Immunity).
A Family court judge can pe [abajournal.com]
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see DNA listed in the text of the 4th.
The Originalists will find, as understood by the founders, that the State is not:
Seizing your Person (they understood that to be your entire body)
Entering your House
Seizing your Papers (your profile is most likely digital - not a paper)
Seizing your Effects (a murky term which has not been well defined in constitutional law and which in the Circuit Courts have received protection based on a “reasonable expectation of privacy” which, as we have recentl
Re: (Score:2)
That's not remotely how originalism works, and that's *definitely* not how the fourth amendment works, but E for Effort, champ. Since you seem to be working off of a really, really poor copy, here's the fourth amendment for reference:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The fourth amendment most assuredly covers searches of the person. It covers searches and seizures. Searching your body, your pockets, under your coat, whatever - that's a search of your person. Always has been. It meant that in 1791, an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Having our physical characteristics recorded and catalogued is intrusive. That is an outside party intruding upon our privacy, which is not natural.
Also, Having a needle stuck in you and some blood which is a part of your body taken from you is a bit painful, and this can cause some damage however superficial it might be judged compared to the supposed benefits.
If that is not too much an intrusion, then at what point does it become too much?
Would it not be a violation of god-given rights to t
1984? Ha! (Score:1)
Orwellian doesn't even begin to describe this... as George Orwell himself could not have possibly come up with something this disturbing.
Re: (Score:2)
Orwellian doesn't even begin to describe this... as George Orwell himself could not have possibly come up with something this disturbing.
Wrong dystopian novelist. Aldous Huxley easily could, and indeed may have done for all I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh goody another reason to get a vasectomy (Score:2, Interesting)
What if this wasn't a baby? Can they subpoena a random person just because they think they might have a relative who might have at some time committed a crime?
Re: (Score:1)
And by convince I mean simply ask.
Heck if you can buy the data (Score:2, Troll)
Elections have consequences.
Cops have quotas (Score:1)
Uvalde Really threw it in the face about how completely useless they are at protecting us. So they're getting increasingly desperate to find and create low hanging fruit to make those numbers go up.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah - this was a lot of effort (Score:2)
This isn't a 'low hanging fruit' case. This reflects a lot of effort and preparation.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the police is not there to solve crime. Its purpose is to keep the unwashed masses under control to protect the rich. That "protect everybody" story is just there to polish up their image and it makes for a nice fantasy. No surprise it gets pushed in so many cop-shows.
Subpoena was not a fishing expedition? (Score:5, Interesting)
"... subpoenaed a testing lab for a blood sample drawn from a child. Police then performed DNA analysis on the blood sample that reportedly linked the child’s father to a crime committed more than 25 years ago."
Sounds like they already had a suspect. This doesn't sound like the LEOs used numerous infants' DNA to find a match in open cases.
In the near future (Score:3)
Once you're inside your new Tesla, it will lock the doors and drive you to the police station for booking.
Newborn metabolic screening in NZ (Score:3, Informative)
We have a similar database here in NZ. A heel prick blood sample taken at birth. The cops aren't allowed anywhere near the building, let alone access to the samples... Once and while it might be used to confirm the identify of a dead person. But there have to be pretty specific circumstances.
Here's a link to our Ministry of Health Website..
https://www.health.govt.nz/you... [health.govt.nz]
Re: (Score:2)
Access to blood spot cards by New Zealand Police is rare and only as a last resort. It is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding.
Even if that actually does currently prevent its use in pursuing criminals, mission creep will ensure that won't remain the case. I don't care how progressive you think your government is, you can't hand it tools like this and think it won't eventually find ways to use them to expand its power.
This is about MEDICAL ethics (Score:2, Insightful)
Blood drawn for the benefit of a patient should not be used for any other purpose. In doing so, the state is interfering in the doctor patient relationship, which is the no-no here.
I''m in favor (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm in favor of government DNA databases of everyone. We ought to have public/private key instead of SS numbers and credit cards, and DNA could be used (plus other tests) to reissue a new private key if an old one gets compromised. DNA should automatically be used to confirm paternity. It should be used for medical research. It should be used to identify suspects of crimes, like this. It should be illegal to kill or stalk individuals, but it already is illegal. It should be illegal to harrass people just because they have allele XYZ, but we've already got such laws for racial discrimination, so this also is not new. DNA seems like a different type of photograph. I'm not sure if the DNA database of everyone should be fully public, or only partially public, but the use cases I know for a partially public one seem to me to be all in favor of having it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "partially public."
It is only a matter of time before whatever data such a database contains that is in the hands of the government becomes "fully public."
Re: (Score:2)
I am sad that you likely are a part of the society that I am a part of. You have no understanding or idea of why Privacy, especially from the government, is important. People like you will help others enslave everyone and you will be happy about it because you think you are doing the right thing. You have no understanding of freedom/slavery and life/death. You think that your opinion is everyone else's opinion and you have no idea why anyone disagrees with you. You do not even have the concept that anyone C
You know what's needed to combat this? (Score:1)
Baby skull seeking bullets. /s Trevor Moore, we miss you man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
These babies ... (Score:3)
Is it good or bad? (Score:1)