Page 248 - Privacy in a Cyber Age Policy and Practice

236 NOTES

in Different Eukaryotic Organisms: Survey and Analysis,” Genome Research
10 (2000): 957.
23. Natalie Ram, “Fortuity and Forensic Familial Identification,” Stanford Law
Review 63 (2011): 751.
24. Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. __, (2013).
25. Brief of Genetics, Genomics and Forensic Science Researchers as Amici Curiae in
Support of Neither Party in Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. __ (2013).
26. “Full DNA Samples to be Destroyed,” Express, December 13, 2012.
27. “S and Marper v. United Kingdom,” European Court of Human Rights (2008):
1581.
28. For a discussion of the critical difference between limiting secondary usages
and limiting collection, see Amitai Etzioni, “A Cyber Age Privacy Doctrine:
A Liberal Communitarian Approach,” ISJLP 9 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=2348117.
29. Tracey Maclin, “Is Obtaining an Arrestee’s DNA a Valid Special Needs Search
Under the Fourth Amendment? What Should (and Will) the Supreme Court
Do?,” 34 Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 166 (2006).
30. The CODIS website states that “CODIS was designed to compare a target
DNA record against the DNA records contained in the database. Once a match
is identified by the CODIS software, the laboratories involved in the match
exchange information to verify the match [. . .] to establish probable cause
to obtain an evidentiary DNA sample from the suspect. [. . .]The casework
laboratory can then perform a DNA analysis on the known biological sample
so that this analysis can be presented as evidence in court. See FBI Labora-
tory Services, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the CODIS Program
and the National DNA Index System,, 2011, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/
biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet.
31. Aaron P. Stevens, “Arresting Crime: Expanding the Scope of DNA Databases in
America,” Texas Law Review 79 (2001): 921.
32. New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, “DNA Frequently Asked
Questions,” http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/forensic/dnafaqs.htm.
33. United States v. Stewart, 532 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2008).
34. Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. __ (2013).
35. Amitai Etzioni, “The Privacy Merchants: What Is to Be Done?” University of
Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 14, 4 (2012).
36. U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, “Compliance with
Standards Governing Combined DNA Index System Activities at the South-
western Institute of Forensic Sciences at Dallas County, Texas,” (December
2009), http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/2009/g8010002.pdf.
37. State v. Maxfield, 125 Wash.2d 378, 392, 886 P.2d 123 (1994).
38. Sonia M. Suter, “All in the Family: Privacy and Familial DNA Searching,” Har-
vard Journal of Law & Technology 23, 2 (2010): 323.
39. Robin Williams and Paul Johnson, “Inclusiveness, Effectiveness and Intrusive-
ness: Issues in the Developing Uses of DNA Profiling in Support of Criminal
Investigations,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (2006): 234; see also
Sonia M. Suter, “All in the Family,” 309.