Police Used a Baby's DNA To Investigate Its Father For a Crime (wired.com) 74
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: If you were born in the United States within the last 50 or so years, chances are good that one of the first things you did as a baby was give a DNA sample to the government. By the 1970s, states had established newborn screening programs, in which a nurse takes a few drops of blood from a pinprick on a baby's heel, then sends the sample to a lab to test for certain diseases. Over the years, the list has grown from just a few conditions to dozens. The blood is supposed to be used for medical purposes -- these screenings identify babies with serious health issues, and they have been highly successful at reducing death and disability among children. But a public records lawsuit filed last month in New Jersey suggests these samples are also being used by police in criminal investigations. The lawsuit, filed by the state's Office of the Public Defender and the New Jersey Monitor, a nonprofit news outlet, alleges that state police sought a newborn's blood sample from the New Jersey Department of Health to investigate the child's father in connection with a sexual assault from the 1990s.
Crystal Grant, a technology fellow at the American Civil Liberties Union, says the case represents a "whole new leap forward" in the misuse of DNA by law enforcement. "It means that essentially every baby born in the US could be included in police surveillance," she says. It's not known how many agencies around the country have sought to use newborn screening samples to investigate crimes, or how often those attempts were successful. But there is at least one other instance of it happening. In December 2020, a local TV station reported that police in California had issued five search warrants to access such samples, and that at least one cold case there was solved with the help of newborn blood. "This increasing overreach into the health system by police to get genetic information is really concerning," Grant says.
The New Jersey lawsuit alleges that police obtained the blood sample of a newborn child (who is now elementary-school aged) to perform a DNA analysis that linked the baby's father to a crime. This was done using a technique called investigative genetic genealogy, or forensic genealogy. It usually involves isolating DNA left at a crime scene and using it to create a digital genetic profile of a suspect. Investigators can upload this profile to genealogy websites where other people have freely shared their own DNA information in the hope of connecting with family members or learning about their ancestry. Because DNA is shared within families, investigators can use relative matches to map out a suspect's family tree and narrow down their identity. According to the New Jersey lawsuit, police had reopened an investigation into a cold case and had used genetics to place the suspect within a single family: one of several adults or their children. But police didn't yet have probable cause to obtain search warrants for DNA swabs from any of them. Instead, they asked the state's newborn screening lab for a blood sample of one of the children. Analysis of this genetic information revealed a close relationship between the baby's DNA and the DNA taken at the crime scene, indicating that the baby's father was the person police were seeking. That was enough to establish probable cause in the assault investigation, so police sought a warrant for a cheek swab from the father. After analyzing his DNA, the suit contends, police found that it was a match to the crime scene DNA. "Because there are no federal laws governing newborn screening programs, states set their own policies on which diseases they test for, how long samples are stored, and how they can be used," notes Wired. "Some states hold on to blood samples for months, others for years or decades. Virginia only keeps samples from infants with normal results for six months, while Michigan retains them for up to 100 years. New Jersey stores samples for 23 years before destroying them."
Crystal Grant, a technology fellow at the American Civil Liberties Union, says the case represents a "whole new leap forward" in the misuse of DNA by law enforcement. "It means that essentially every baby born in the US could be included in police surveillance," she says. It's not known how many agencies around the country have sought to use newborn screening samples to investigate crimes, or how often those attempts were successful. But there is at least one other instance of it happening. In December 2020, a local TV station reported that police in California had issued five search warrants to access such samples, and that at least one cold case there was solved with the help of newborn blood. "This increasing overreach into the health system by police to get genetic information is really concerning," Grant says.
The New Jersey lawsuit alleges that police obtained the blood sample of a newborn child (who is now elementary-school aged) to perform a DNA analysis that linked the baby's father to a crime. This was done using a technique called investigative genetic genealogy, or forensic genealogy. It usually involves isolating DNA left at a crime scene and using it to create a digital genetic profile of a suspect. Investigators can upload this profile to genealogy websites where other people have freely shared their own DNA information in the hope of connecting with family members or learning about their ancestry. Because DNA is shared within families, investigators can use relative matches to map out a suspect's family tree and narrow down their identity. According to the New Jersey lawsuit, police had reopened an investigation into a cold case and had used genetics to place the suspect within a single family: one of several adults or their children. But police didn't yet have probable cause to obtain search warrants for DNA swabs from any of them. Instead, they asked the state's newborn screening lab for a blood sample of one of the children. Analysis of this genetic information revealed a close relationship between the baby's DNA and the DNA taken at the crime scene, indicating that the baby's father was the person police were seeking. That was enough to establish probable cause in the assault investigation, so police sought a warrant for a cheek swab from the father. After analyzing his DNA, the suit contends, police found that it was a match to the crime scene DNA. "Because there are no federal laws governing newborn screening programs, states set their own policies on which diseases they test for, how long samples are stored, and how they can be used," notes Wired. "Some states hold on to blood samples for months, others for years or decades. Virginia only keeps samples from infants with normal results for six months, while Michigan retains them for up to 100 years. New Jersey stores samples for 23 years before destroying them."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As the summary says, state law varies on how long they must/can be kept -- although it appears this case was in California and the summary doesn't mention what their laws are, if any, on this matter.
In general, you should assume that all samples, test results, X-ray/MRI/CT/PET scan images taken are kept forever. Of course they don't keep everything, but what they keep is generally up to them, not you. If you read the fine print where I live, they make it clear that anything they remove from you becomes thei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now if states (or perhaps Congress if that's within their Article 1, Section 8 powers) want to pass laws barring such samples or records being subject to search warrants and/or subpoena in criminal or civil cases, they are free to do so.
Iowa already did this, and other states should follow suit. These newborn screening tests (sometimes called PKU test, given that was the first condition screened in this way), are one of the top 10 public health achievements of the last century and prevent or reduce harm from inherited disorders for over 12,000 babies in the U.S. every year.
The use of these dried blood samples in any way that is not directly connected to the health of these babies will have a cooling effect on parents' willingness to par
Re: (Score:2)
I believe all 50 states require that these tests be made. Do some of these states allow parents to "opt out'? If so, they should not be allowed to opt out as that would not be in the best interests of the child and would, IMHO, qualify as abuse just as "opting out" of feeding a child would be.
Re: (Score:2)
-Quality control for the lab procedures and equipment (old samples can be re-tested to ensure labs are working effectively).
-If a baby later develops a condition, their stored blood sample can be pulled to see if a test could be developed that could have detected that condition at birth (and allowed that baby to get into treatment right away, rather than waiting).
-If a child or baby dies unexpectedly, then the blood sample can be scanned for other possible
Re:Reducing disablity (Score:5, Informative)
This sort of shit however may cause people to start refusing to allow their children to be tested.
Re: (Score:3)
In WA it's state law to test for PKU, so you'd have that to deal with. Also, you have to know about it ahead of time. They do the test within a few hours of birth. It's not something new parents would be thinking about.
Re: (Score:2)
It is apparently required [chop.edu] in all 50 states to some degree, along with a battery of other tests. In general, it seems like good medical practice; yet something private and personal taken from citizens for one reason, is being exploited for another. Again.
The question we should be asking is why the need for the storage, and what is the length of time reasonably necessary to protect the newborn. As this story breaks, I can guarantee there is a detective somewhere rubbing his hands together, saying, "Hmmmm..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The health risks for not completing the newborn screening tests are significant, and the risks of breaches of genetic privacy are small (some states, like Iowa, have laws against the use of the leftover blood spots for any law enforcement activities, even with a warrant).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Reducing disablity (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fool reply to fool comment. Where are you guys from? In the US and in many countries we have rights.
Oh, sure. Right up until your government decides you don't have them any more.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like they got the necessary warrants for the baby's sample - approved by a judge.
Also note that the baby was not under investigation. The bar may be quite a bit lower for a warrant in that case.
Consider, for example, if a shop keeper doesn't want to give police a security video that shows a murder outside their store but there is absolutely no reason to believe that the shop keeper had anything to do with the murder (perhaps he was in the county drunk tank at the time of the murder). The bar is pr
Re: (Score:1)
You are confusing the rights of the child/baby with the father/alleged-perpetrator.
You shouldn't be able to violate one person's rights to prosecute another person even if it is for good intentions.
Not quite a press release, not NY, but still (Score:1)
Turns out it wasn't a case of when will it happen [slashdot.org], but when will we learn it already happened?
We have doctor-patient privilege for a reason, but it turns out that in the US it's really already stone dead. No privilege as a matter of course will keep biting in ever newer and ever more exciting ways. Share and enjoy!
Re: (Score:1)
The cynic in me wonders for these decades old cases if there is a trend is the level of melanin (or lack thereof) of the victims.
Re: (Score:2)
If police are not investigating proven current cases of sexual assault, they probably should be focusing on those rather than similar cases from decades ago.
However, not all sexual assault claims and cases are the same.
I don't see any detail here, but a "cold" case where the claim of sexual assault is very credible (such as there being witnesses or because someone broke into an bedridden old lady's home and raped and injured her and all the evidence supports that -- but the suspect is not known) is quite di
Re: (Score:1)
There is a problem not directly obvious from this success case, ends justifying the means to some degree. The problem is there is insufficient regulation on just what exactly the government and police can do with personal data and technology. Our Bill of Rights wasn't prepared to tackle technological advances and so far the legislature is not ready to tap the brakes on the expansion of the government's power.
Legislatively it could be as minimal as more transparency in what data is collect and how it can be
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. They use this data to do the right thing.
Re: (Score:2)
So the ends justify the means? Is there anything wrong with being in a police state where you are under constant surveillance because it will help catch criminals? The police should have found a different way. From my point of view, the very fact that they not only thought about using this information, but actually went through it should lead to an ethics investigation to all those involved. To me, it demonstrates questionable judgment skills on their part.
Re: What's the problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they got a warrant - that is the safeguard. Perhaps it's an insufficient safeguard in which case the legislative process can be used to put additional constraints on what can be subject to a warrant.
Remember, with a warrant, the police can take a sample of a suspect's DNA and actually restrain the person if needed to gather it from their living, breathing body - not just get it from a medical provider who had it for an unrelated reason. It's clear DNA is not "off limits" to warrants - nor should
Re: (Score:2)
In New Jersey, they did not. They simply asked the relevant branch of government for the information, and they received it (Which I am not OK with. That is not how the system is supposed to work)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gross, dude. Seek help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't a case of a California law enforcement agency asking New Jersey for the data.
It was 2 cases, California -> California (with warrant), New Jersey -> New Jersey (without warrant).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
If the courts can't apply that to taking blood samples and the HIPAA-protected medical information obtained from those blood samples, then all hope would be lost. But I haven't lost hope, as some of the cases mentioned did get search warrants for the DNA profile. We may, however, need congress to pass a national law about this, as TFA implied that there was no search warrant obtained in the New Jersey case.
Re: (Score:2)
HIPAA in no way prevents a provider from responding to a court issued warrant for information or samples. If you think it should, call your representatives in Congress and urge them to add such a restriction. It's only laws that make medical records/samples "special" in some way from, for example, the contents of your hall closet or your USPS mail deliveries (which are tracked and fairly readily available to law enforcement with a warrant).
I didn't draw the same implication from TFA that you did about there
Re: (Score:2)
A subpoena for the data, which led to forming the probable cause for a later warrant, can be issued without probable cause ever being established, and without a Judge (or even court clerk) ever having seen it.
I should note that the information didn't come from a medical provider. It came from the NJ DOH.
Worst case, an officer asked a DA to produce the subpoena, and then they walked across the
Re: (Score:2)
This search warrant was to the medical provider for records/materials that they had control of. It wasn't even a search of the baby (now a child). This is, in some ways, rather like a warrant for your internet history being issued to your ISP to whom you relinquished all that information.
Admittedly, the baby had no say in that sample being gathered as the law in all 50 states requires at least that the screening be done unlike the ISP customer who had the option not to sign up for the service and therefore
Re: (Score:2)
it's all fun and games until the data is used to track down dissidents.
Re: (Score:2)
In the "old" days, there was a physical tag placed on the DUI suspect's body to let the hospital know to take the sample. Some r
Re: (Score:2)
And then think of what _else_ they can to with that data. Lets just say that the 4th Reich will have none of the troubles the 3rd Reich had rounding up people to kill them based on genetic markup.
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously? Nazis? Is that the best example that you can come up with?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Nazis? Is that the best example that you can come up with?
Nope. But a simple mind needs a clear and simple example. So I delivered that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They should need a search warrant to obtain something as private as a blood sample to get genetic information.
TFA talked about several cases in California where they got a search warrant - I have no problem with that.
But apparently they didn't need or get a search warrant in the New Jersey case. I'm not OK with that. And I would assume that
Re: (Score:2)
4th amendment applies. If you can get a judge to sign off on a warrant, have at it.
Unilaterally obtaining such information from personal data collected by executive branches is the way to a police state.
Re: (Score:2)
One Way to End This... (Score:2)
We can end this by making sure Republicans, GOP and Evangelicals believe this is how the "others" are able to continually attack and persecute them.
"They are taking your Christian baby's blood so they can screen it for more woke, affirmative action! By the way, they already have yours!"
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a plan. Although the terminally stupid sometimes behave in surprisingly smart ways.
Search warrants (Score:2)
police in California had issued five search warrants to access such samples
Isn't the search warrant the proper method of obtaining (searching for) evidence protected by the 4th amendment?
Re: (Score:2)
Next step ... (Score:2)
Re: Next step ... (Score:2)
Chart of state-by-state retention policies (Score:3)
Here is a chart [cchfreedom.org] of retention policies for each State, 2001-2019.
Republicans (Score:1)
If they had not overturned Roe v. Wade we wouldn't be in this mess.
Re: (Score:2)
What does Roe v. Wade have to do with authorities collecting genetic material?
Re: (Score:2)
According to Republicans, babies wouldn't exist if Roe v. Wade were allowed to stand. Therefore there wouldn't be any baby to collect DNA from.
Well done (Score:2)
Well done to the cops. Finding people who commit crimes and subjecting them to the judicial process is exactly what they should be doing. If what they do is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal then the courts are the place to determine this. Meanwhile: excellent!!!!!!
Overheard on Jerry (Score:2)
You are the FATHER
and here is the warrant for your arrest
Normally I'm opposed to stuff like this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What happens when almost everything is a crime?
Read "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent," by Harvey Silverglate. In it, he convincingly demonstrates that every American unwittingly commits, on average, three felonies every day of their adult lives.
Re: (Score:1)
Then the world becomes a place where anyone in power can prosecute anyone when they feel like it. Now all you have left is if you agree with when they deploy their hate/love or not.
But shouldn't the response to this be to work on decreasing laws not try to make places for criminals to hide?
Re: (Score:2)
And to some extent they are correct at least for a time. Eventually, though, even those who are relatively good at sidestepping the rules get caught but by then the bad laws are entrenched and it's one of the t
Need laws to control the technology (Score:3)
A topical ISR (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, by guilt of association children suffer for what police found on their fathers.
Not sexual assault I think (Score:1)
I did a quick search for statute of limitations on sexual assault. They're 2-4, maybe 5 years. I didn't look at every one. New Jersey isn't more than 5 years. So why are they digging back for a 1990s case? Unless it's murder or they want to blame someone for an old case.