In “Fighting crime with DNA” (Commentary, Oct. 9), columnist Steve Chapman embraces a current social phenomenon–dubbed the “CSI Effect”–in his endorsement of DNA collection for all people arrested in the United States. The allure of television programs about police investigators using forensic evidence to facilely solve murder mysteries has made Americans amenable to the notion that science can provide easy answers for fighting crime. The collection of DNA from all arrestees, the argument goes, is a “sensible” step to make our neighborhoods more secure. This argument sadly understates both the constitutional and the practical implications of collecting DNA from all arrestees. Those who support the collection and permanent retention of DNA samples are summarily dismissing important constitutional concerns. Conducting DNA testing solely on the basis of an arrest would violate the right to privacy under the U.S. and the Illinois state Constitutions.
Proponents of creating a massive DNA database attempt to evade this constitutional problem by suggesting that DNA is really only an enhanced fingerprint. DNA is not the modern equivalent of a fingerprint. A fingerprint is used for a single purpose–to identify someone. DNA contains our entire genetic makeup, with information about health issues, susceptibility to particular diseases or conditions as well as information about close family members.
Hundreds of thousands of people are arrested each year. Many of these people are arrested solely on the basis of a police officer’s discretion. Ultimately many of those arrested are not prosecuted at all, and others are found innocent of any wrongdoing. The intimate, sensitive nature of the information contained in a DNA sample demands that a high standard be set before police collect and permanently retain such personal information in a massive database. State law currently allows the collection and permanent retention of DNA from all people convicted in Illinois. That is where we should draw the line. This does not preclude DNA evidence from being used at trial, where such evidence is appropriate.
Imposing a requirement for the collection and storage of DNA merely on the basis of an arrest is an intolerably low threshold that violates the important principle of presumed innocence.
Because arrests disproportionately target minority communities, the Illinois Human Rights Act prohibits an employer in the state from inquiring about the fact of an arrest record when recruiting or hiring employees. Courts have interpreted federal law similarly to bar the use of arrest records in employment decisions.
If we are not going to require a conviction–a better index of criminality–before compelling someone to place one’s DNA in a massive and permanent criminal database, there simply is no limit on what might trigger collection of a sample. DNA testing, under this theory, could be made part of gaining access to government employment, enrolling in a public university or even receiving a state-issued identification card or driver’s license.
As a practical matter, proponents never explain how state and local entities will pay the exorbitant costs for DNA testing all people arrested.