A Proponent ’ s Perspective Familial DNA

It is easy—but important—to imagine how government could run amok with technology at the expense of civil liberties. State-sanctioned use of genetic information has provided particularly fertile ground for hypothesizing a parade of horribles; one need look no further than popular films such as Gattaca (note the title composed of DNA chemical “letters” A, T, C, G) and Minority Report, or federal appellate case law citing these films. (See United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 851 (9th Cir. 2004) (Reinhardt, J. dissenting) (warning that finding law enforcement DNA databases to comply with the Fourth Amendment under a totality of circumstances analysis is “reason to fear that the nightmarish worlds depicted in films such as Minority Report and Gattaca will become realities”).) The same dissent went on to prophesize that DNA databases “could be used to repress dissent or, quite literally, to eliminate political opposition,” and expressed alarm at the government’s potential use of DNA samples to “predict the likelihood that a given individual will engage in certain types of criminal, or non-criminal but perhaps socially disfavored, behavior.” (Id. at 847, 850.) Dire sentiments indeed. But, this being the present and not the future, all one can hope to do is to allay such fears by explaining the scientific techniques that law enforcement is using, to what end(s) it is using them, and under what legal conditions. I hope that the following description of familial DNA searching will provide sufficient explanation to allow ongoing discussion about this particular law enforcement tool from a common knowledge base, and without resort to grim but unfounded Orwellian predictions. MICHAEL CHAMBERLAIN is the deputy attorney general with the California Department of Justice. A Proponent’s Perspective