DNA and Police tracing

[speedyman]

I have been watching a cold case TV program and the police reinvestigate and now have DNA evidence from years ago when the offence was committed. But they still had no match on the police DNA database. So I wondered if it was legal for the police use a commercial DNA database like Ancestry or My Heritage to solve a crime?

[Bigends]

This was in the states. Doubt things would be much different over here

https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/10/ancestry-police-...

[Psycho Warren]

If it became a big issue the companies would just change the process to destroy the DNA profile once the customers report has been compiled. I can't imagine there would be any legal precedant to force a company to retain DNA profiles used in non-law enforcement or medical procedures just incase the police may want future access.

[Dibble]

Short answer is no.

We quite often investigate sexual offences where DNA is recovered from the scene and run against the NDNAD (National DNA database), which comes back as no match. Information will come in, naming person X as a possible person of interest.

Even if person X is on the PNC (Police National Computer) with a confirmed DNA profile, therefore also on the NDNAD, to positively eliminate person X from the enquiry (if there aren’t sufficient grounds for arrest, when I’d then be able to get a further DNA sample from them), I have to try and get a consensual elimination DNA sample from them, to run that against the scene sample...

Sounds crazy, but it’s one of the safeguards around DNA data.

[Captain_Morgan]

Dibble said:

Short answer is no.

I have to try and get a consensual elimination DNA sample from them, to run that against the scene sample...

Sounds crazy, but it’s one of the safeguards around DNA data.

Out of idle curiosity would a refusal of consensual sample raise the level of suspicion significantly?

Also if someone provided a consensual sample is it destroyed if a non-match or kept on the database?

[speedyman]

I thought that might be the answer, human rights etc. Having done a DNA test which solved a family mystery from the late 1800 and identified who was my grandfather's father I know first hand what the power of DNA tracing is.

[irc]

There was a murder/rape in Glasgow back in the1990s where there was no DNA match but there was a near match. It was ascertained that the suspect DNA was a close male relative to a person on the database who lived in the Glasgow area.

This person was interviewed and found to have a few males relatives one of whom was subsequently charged and convicted. There was absolutely no connection between the victim and her killer. There was no other useful evidence like witnesses CCTV etc. Before DNA this would have been an unsolved murder.

Amazing stuff.

[Dibble]

Captain_Morgan said:

Dibble said:

Short answer is no.

I have to try and get a consensual elimination DNA sample from them, to run that against the scene sample...

Sounds crazy, but it’s one of the safeguards around DNA data.

Out of idle curiosity would a refusal of consensual sample raise the level of suspicion significantly?

Also if someone provided a consensual sample is it destroyed if a non-match or kept on the database?

It would raise suspicions, but not a huge amount, because I know some people don’t trust “the police” and aren’t happy to give DNA (knowing how crap some government databases are, I wouldn’t be thrilled about it either). On its own, refusal to give DNA probably wouldn’t raise the level enough for an arrest, but it might if it was coupled with other information (mobile phone cell siting, description, separate, unrelated sources naming someone).

Voluntary/consensual DNA should be destroyed, but I’m not naive enough to think that cock ups don’t happen. I’m sure 99.9% of the time they do (probably even higher than that), but any system with humans involved isn’t infallible. I’m pretty certain the consent form in the sampling kits (which I personally go through with the subject) has wording to the effect the sample is only on relation to the specific enquiry and will be destroyed. I’ve tried to Google the form, but can’t see it from a quick search and I’m not in work to look at one.

[Bigends]

Dibble said:

Captain_Morgan said:

Dibble said:

Short answer is no.

I have to try and get a consensual elimination DNA sample from them, to run that against the scene sample...

Sounds crazy, but it’s one of the safeguards around DNA data.

Out of idle curiosity would a refusal of consensual sample raise the level of suspicion significantly?

Also if someone provided a consensual sample is it destroyed if a non-match or kept on the database?

It would raise suspicions, but not a huge amount, because I know some people don’t trust “the police” and aren’t happy to give DNA (knowing how crap some government databases are, I wouldn’t be thrilled about it either). On its own, refusal to give DNA probably wouldn’t raise the level enough for an arrest, but it might if it was coupled with other information (mobile phone cell siting, description, separate, unrelated sources naming someone).

Voluntary/consensual DNA should be destroyed, but I’m not naive enough to think that cock ups don’t happen. I’m sure 99.9% of the time they do (probably even higher than that), but any system with humans involved isn’t infallible. I’m pretty certain the consent form in the sampling kits (which I personally go through with the subject) has wording to the effect the sample is only on relation to the specific enquiry and will be destroyed. I’ve tried to Google the form, but can’t see it from a quick search and I’m not in work to look at one.

Theyre destroyed after six months unless retention is required in relation to an ongoing investigation if I remember correctly. Retention must be authorised and necessary

[Roofless Toothless]

This was in the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngel...

"Eventually, "through the use of genetic genealogy searching on GEDmatch, investigators identified distant relatives of DeAngelo — including family members directly related to his great-great-great-great grandfather dating back to the 1800s. Based on this information, investigators built about 25 different family trees. The tree that eventually linked to [DeAngelo] alone contained approximately 1,000 people."

Do USA laws allow this, but UK laws do not?

[Captain_Morgan]

Thanks for the response Dibble

[paul.deitch]

Nothing to do with policing but recently I got a documented DNA link to a family in south west France from 1660 which is quite amazing. Unfortunately on my side there is no family history, yet, to go with the link.

[redjohn]

Dibble said:

I know some people don’t trust “the police” and aren’t happy to give DNA (knowing how crap some government databases are, I wouldn’t be thrilled about it either).

and not without good reason, the police love of mass surveillance and data retention is well known. They were dragged kicking an screaming through the courts to delete DNA records of innocent people, when at the time 1 in 5 samples held were from innocent people who had committed no crime. Today because facial recognition falls outside the biometric protections given to finger prints and DNA the same mass collection is underway with around a third of all adults now in the police database. Knowing the check and balances in place for other biometrics this is very unethical and shows the true culture. Sadly the law can not keep up with technology which the police are happy to exploit. It isn't just biometric data, 30 million vehicle movements of innocent people are recorded every day by the police.