California Supreme Court Upholds the State's Problematic Arrestee DNA Collection Law
By Jennifer Lynch,
Electronic Frontier Foundation
| 04. 02. 2018
In a disappointing and deeply divided opinion released today, the California Supreme Court upheld a state law law mandating DNA collection from arrestees. A lower court had held this law violated the privacy and search and seizure protections guaranteed under the California constitution. Today’s decision lets this flawed law stand.
The case, People v. Buza, involved a San Francisco man who challenged his conviction for refusing to provide a DNA sample after he was arrested. California law allows police to collect DNA from anyone arrested on suspicion of a felony—without a warrant or any finding by a judge that there was sufficient cause for the arrest. The state stores arrestees’ DNA samples indefinitely, and allows DNA profiles to be searched continuously by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.
EFF weighed in on the case in 2015, filing an amicus brief arguing the state’s constitution prohibits the collection of DNA from arrestees because of the severe impact DNA collection has on our right to privacy. Our DNA contains our entire genetic makeup—private and personal information that maps who we are, where we...
Related Articles
By Emily Galpern
| 06.28.2019
The Child-Parent Security Act, which would have legalized commercial surrogacy in New York, did not make it out of the State Assembly last week. The controversy that surrounded the bill reverberated well beyond the state, highlighting the complexities of crafting surrogacy policy grounded in social justice principles. Many of us who advocate for women’s health, reproductive justice, and LGBTQ rights will continue to grapple with how to develop equity-oriented recommendations for public policy, professional standards, and on-the-ground practices. We...
By Donna Dickenson, Marcy Darnovsky, Nature | 03.15.2019
To the Editor — The claim last November by He Jiankui to have engineered the first CRISPR-edited babies has ignited voluble condemnation from scientists worldwide. What, then, made this rogue researcher think that his ‘achievement’ would be welcomed? One possible...
By Elizabeth Joh, The New York Times | 06.11.2019
Someone broke into a church in Centerville, Utah, last November and attacked the organist who was practicing there. In March, after a conventional investigation came up empty, a police detective turned to forensic consultants at Parabon NanoLabs. Using the publicly...
By Lori Andrews, Guest Contributor
| 06.18.2019
Editors note: This article was originally published on ourbodiesourselves.org and is reposted here with generous permission from Our Bodies Our Selves.
Six years ago, on June 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in AMP v. Myriad took a great step forward for women’s health by unanimously ruling that human genes could not be patented. Now a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives have released a bill that would allow companies to own our genes once again.
Article 1 of...
