Page 249 - Privacy in a Cyber Age Policy and Practice

NOTES 237

40. Jeremy W. Peters, “New Rule Allows Use of Partial DNA Matches,” The
New York Times, January 24, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/
nyregion/25dna.html.
41. Sonia M. Suter, “All in the Family,” 309, 318.
42. Ibid., 309, 312.
43. Dane C. Barca, “Familial DNA Testing, House Bill 3361, and the Need for Fed-
eral Oversight,” Hastings Law Journal 64 (2013): 518; see also Rebecca Dresser,
“Families and Forensic DNA Profiles,” Hastings Center Report 41 (2011): 12;
Rori V. Rohlfs et al., “The Influence of Relatives on the Efficiency and Error
Rate of Familial Searching,” PLoS One 8 (2013): 9; Henry T. Greely et al., “Fam-
ily Ties: The Use of DNA Offender Databases to Catch Offenders’ Kin,” Journal
of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 34, 2 (2006): 254.
44. Joyce Kim, Danny Mammo, Mami B. Siegel, and Sarah H. Katsanis, all of the
Center for Genome Ethics, Law, and Policy at Duke University, point out that
partial match searches often generate unnecessarily large suspect pools. See
Joyce Kim et al., “Policy Implications for Familial Searching,” Investigative
Genetics 2, 1 (2011): 4.
45. Michael Naughton and Gabe Tan, “The Need for Caution in the Use of DNA
Evidence to Avoid Convicting the Innocent,” International Journal of Evidence
and Proof 15 (2001): 245–57.
46. Erin E. Murphy, “Familial DNA Searches: The Opposing Viewpoint,” Criminal
Justice 27 (2012): 20.
47. For example, false positives can be reduced by increasing the number of loci
analyzed in a DNA profile. Performing additional types of DNA analysis that
more accurately predict relationships between individuals and including this
information in DNA profiles would also decrease the probability of false
positives. Moreover, refining the computer algorithms used to suggest partial
matches would also help to separate random matches from true relatives. See
Henry T. Greely et al., “Family Ties,” 254; Jianye Ge et al., “Developing Criteria
and Data to Determine Best Options for Expanding the Core CODIS Loci,”
Investigative Genetics 3, 1 (2012).
48. Sonia M. Suter, “All in the Family,” 309, 385–94.
49. Joyce Kim et al., “Policy Implications for Familial Searching,” 4.
50. Office of the Attorney General, “Brown’s Forensic Experts Identify Grim
Sleeper Serial Killer Suspect Through Unexpected Use of Familial DNA,”
State of California Department of Justice, July 8, 2010, https://oag.ca.gov/
news/press-releases/browns-forensic-experts-identify-grim-sleeper-serial-
killer-suspect-through.
51. Sepideh Esmaili, “Searching for a Needle in a Haystack: The Constitutionality
of Police DNA Dragnets,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 82 (2007): 495.
52. Ibid.
53. Jeffrey S. Grand, “The Blooding of America: Privacy and the DNA Dragnet,”
Cardozo Law Review 23 (2002): 2280; Christopher Slobogin, “Government
Dragnets,” Law & Contemporary Problems 73 (2010): 123: “Privacy violations
[are] inherent in the DNA dragnet”; Fred W. Drobner, “DNA Dragnets: Con-
stitutional Aspects of Mass DNA Identification Testing,” Capital University