When privacy fails: invoking a property paradigm to mandate the destruction of DNA samples.

The maxim “innocent until proven guilty” has assumed significance in legal scholarship, colloquial conversation, and the media; indeed, the concept resonates with American society. Its prominence in popular and legal culture reflects society’s concern for balancing the constitutional guarantee of liberty with the government’s duty to secure the well-being of its citizens. The maxim recognizes the inherent collisions of constitutional law and criminal law, of rights and responsibilities, and of privacy and protection. In the very nature of these ideas is the notion that Americans respect— and arguably require—laws that offer broad protection to society without eclipsing individual privacy. Recent scientific advances have afforded deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) a preeminent role in providing such protections; with the advent of cataloged genetic “fingerprints” that can be matched to cellular material left at crime scenes, the modern American criminal justice system has become increasingly efficient and significantly more accurate. Yet current law, which fails to mandate the destruction of voluntarily provided DNA samples, falls well short of providing genetic privacy to innocent individuals.