In the last few years there have been tremendous technological advancements and successes for law enforcement in the investigations field, one of which includes law enforcement using a public genealogy database as part of an investigation to identify the Golden State Killer suspect, Joseph James DeAngelo, and make an arrest last April. He has been accused of committing more than 50 rapes and 12 murders, according to Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert. “The answer was always going to be in the DNA,” Schubert said during a press conference after DeAngelo’s arrest. “We knew we could and should solve it using the most innovative DNA technology available at this time.”
According to The Washington Post, investigators used DNA recovered from a crime scene to link back to the killer’s distant relatives via GEDmatch, a public website that allows users to upload their genetic data and search for possible family members. From there, a team of investigators spent months building out family trees and came to land on DeAngelo as a suspect. Law enforcement then obtained DeAngelo’s DNA from discarded trash and found a match to samples from the crime scenes, leading to an arrest.
While this arrest came as a relief for many victims and their families, and as a success for law enforcement, many critics pointed to civil liberties issues and ethical concerns. One concern is that law enforcement agencies set a precedent when they use genetic genealogy in cold case murders and sexual assault crimes—that the same techniques could be used to find petty criminals. Others argue that when a civilian uploads his or her DNA into a database, they have an expectation of privacy—that many never intend for their DNA to possibly help incriminate a relative. In fact, Maryland State House Delegate Charles Sydnor feels so passionately about the issue that he introduced HB30 which would, “[Prohibit] a person from performing a search of the statewide DNA data base or any other DNA or genealogical data base for the purpose of identification of an offender in connection with a crime for which the offender may be a biological relative of the individual from whom the DNA sample was acquired.”
There is certainly a lot about this technology still to be discovered, especially as it pertains to law enforcement. In the case of the Golden State Killer, law enforcement used a pubic database where users voluntarily upload their DNA data. This differs from some direct-to-consumer DNA testing companies that do not share their customers’ information with law enforcement and that have policies preventing agencies from directly accessing customers’ DNA data. The way this technology has been used by law enforcement so far has led to multiple cold case arrests across the country and has brought closure for many families of violent crime victims. If this technology can help law enforcement get violent criminals off the street, then we must continue to support its usage, highlighting to local community members the benefits it can provide.
Stay safe, readers.
Adrienne
