(WBEN/AP) - New York's highest court on Tuesday ruled police can resume a DNA searching method that can identify relatives of potential suspects, a technique that has helped solve crimes but caused privacy concerns.
The method, known as Familial DNA Search Regulations, allows law enforcement agencies to search information in their DNA databases to find blood relatives of people who have left genetic material at a crime scene.
The order from the New York Court of Appeals allows the state to use such searches in criminal cases, reversing a lower court ruling from last year that blocked the practice.
Related
The District Attorneys Association of the State of New York (DAASNY) agrees with the New York State Court of Appeals regarding its decision to reinstate Familial DNA Search Regulations, saying it's a big win for public safety in New York.
"This is a huge victory for law enforcement, and not only law enforcement, but for every citizen of the State of New York," said DAASNY President and Erie County District Attorney, John Flynn with WBEN. "What this decision now does is allow us to continue what we and other states across the country are doing, and that is tapping into an additional investigative tool that law enforcement officers can use to help track down criminals."
The case was brought by two men whose brothers were convicted of crimes and had genetic information in the state’s databanks. They alleged that searches could improperly target them because of their family members' crimes, and that the technique was never approved by the New York State Legislature.
Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, writing for the majority, said the state's rulemaking process for the searches was legal, and that regulations intended to protect privacy have resulted in very few search results provided to law enforcement.
The Erie County District Attorney also agrees with the judge's ruling from the state's highest court.
"There's no privacy concerns, there's no overreach here at all. Individuals who are in the DNA databank right now are convicted criminals. Those that are people who have DNA samples in the databank all across this country," Flynn said. "When you come across a crime scene and you are able to extrapolate a DNA sample off a piece of clothing, a car seat, whatever it may be, and then you take that DNA sample and you put it in to the system and you get a partial match, you're able now to use that partial match and say, 'Well, the DNA we got off the car seat looks like it may be someone's DNA who is related to this person who's already in the system.' So now you go to that person and you say to that person, 'By the way, were you in Buffalo, New York on Aug. 23, 2023?' And the person says, 'No, I wasn't. But you know what, my nephew was going to the Bills game on Thursday, and my nephew was in town.' Now that leads police now to, perhaps, talk to that nephew or that cousin."
The ruling applies only to the state's DNA databank, not to databanks that are maintained by private companies for genealogy research.
"The database consists of convicted criminals all across the country. You're just trying to match it with someone who has previously committed a crime," Flynn explained. "You're never going to get an exact match, because that's how it works, but you may get, the best way to put it is a partial match. And then the scientists can say, 'It's probably not this person right here.' It's probably not Joe Smith, who may have gotten convicted of murder in Wisconsin in 1997. It may not be Joe Smith's DNA, but it's probably someone related to Joe Smith. A cousin, a nephew, brother or whatever."
Familial DNA famously led to an arrest in Los Angeles’ Grim Sleeper serial killings, which spanned from 1985 to 2007. Lonnie Franklin Jr. was convicted and sentenced to death this year.
While Flynn says it was common to use this tool leading up to its blocking in May of 2022, it doesn't give a hit or directly lead to a suspect every time.
"It hasn't been successfully used that often, because it's difficult to put all the pieces of the puzzle together," he said. "The reality is, even though we were doing it before the first department in New York City put a quash to it, it was done a lot, but it didn't come to fruition a lot. And it hasn't come to fruition a lot all across the country because, again, it's a lead. It's not a definitive match. It's not, 'Hey, we've got the killer here!' It's not an, 'Oh my God, we've got it!' moment. It's just a lead to get somewhere that will hopefully take you down the path to the perpetrator. But again, sometimes that path can be long, and you may never get down the path."
Are there any other concerns that this practice could find itself blocked again down the road with another challenge? While Flynn believes it's unlikely, the only way there can be another challenge, at this point, is if it's looked over at the federal level.
"The U.S. Supreme Court does, on occasion, take state cases that are ruled upon by the highest court in the state, and they sometimes do review those cases. It's very rare," Flynn said. "The overwhelming majority of United States Supreme Court cases come through the federal system, up through the appeals process of the federal system, and this came up through the state system. But it has happened, and there's a possibility they could look at it, but like I said, it'd be very rare."