Outline of resources and activities in this lesson

1. Part 1 – Student reading and “Do Now” exercise (page 6)

2. Part 2 – Slideshow (slide notes on pages 7-14)

3. Part 3 – Classroom activity (page 15, discussion scenarios on pages 17-20)

4. Part 4 – Assessments & handouts (page 16)

5. Short quiz (answer key on page 16, handout on page 22)

6. List of additional resources (page 23)

Activities

Do Now exercise (5-7 minutes), slideshow (20-25 minutes), scenarios (20 minutes).

DNA, Crime, and Law Enforcement

Part 1: OVERVIEW FOR STUDENTS

Reading for students:

These two articles, together, present a variety of views on the issues related to the use of DNA as a forensic tool to solve crime, with an emphasis on familial searching. The articles highlight the discussions and disagreements within the law and civil rights communities over how to most effectively and fairly use DNA in law enforcement. These articles are used in a homework assignment to follow the lesson, but you instead may choose to have students read it in advance of the lesson.

“Is Your DNA in a Police Database?” by Jill Lawless, November 2015, NBC News.

“The Controversial DNA Search That Helped Nab the “Grim Sleeper” is Winning Over Skeptics” by Marisa Gerber, October 2016, LA Times.

Do Now exercise (5-7 minutes):

Have students read the following scenario and answer the accompanying question, individually or in pairs, and then share their answers in a brief classroom discussion. This scenario is on slide 2 in the slideshow, with further information about this case on slide 3.

You are a business owner. In the past two weeks, your manager has found a pile of human feces in the warehouse on more than one occasion. The manager thinks some unhappy workers may be the ‘devious defecators’ and proposes using a DNA test to find the culprit.

As the business owner, do you go forward with DNA testing your employees to identify the “devious defecators”?

DNA, Crime, and Law Enforcement

Part 2: SLIDESHOW (20-25 minutes)

The slideshow is located on the pgEd website along with this lesson, and accompanying explanatory notes for the slideshow are provided below.

Slide 2

The scenario for this “Do Now” activity will help students begin to consider the topics covered in the lesson. This “Do Now” exercise is based on the “devious defecator” case, which is outlined in slide 3. Detailed notes on the “Do Now” are on page 6.

Slide 3

A recent court case highlighted how the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act (GINA) protects employees from genetic testing in the work environment. Someone had been repeatedly defecating in a grocery warehouse in Atlanta. The manager suspected it was Dennis Reynolds and Jack Lowe, two Black men, who worked for the company. As the employer, the manager asked that they submit a DNA sample to test if they were in fact the “devious defecators”, a nickname coined in the media to describe this case. Reynolds and Lowe, afraid of losing their jobs, agreed to a DNA test. The results indicated that they were not the perpetrators. However, it was illegal for the manager to ask for a DNA sample, because the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) forbids employers from asking for DNA from their employees. The men sued their employer and won $2.25 million dollars in damages to be shared between them. This was the first case that went to trial under GINA (other cases were previously settled without a trial). It shows how the law protects employees from employers seeking genetic information to make a decision to fire employees. For more information on this case please see “‘Devious Defecator’ Case Tests Genetics Law” by Gina Kolata, May 2015, The New York Times.

Slide 4

GINA is a federal law that prohibits employers and health insurance providers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information. Signed into law in 2008, GINA has two main provisions. First, it forbids employers to use genetic information to make hiring, firing and promotion decisions. Second, GINA forbids group and individual health insurers from using genetic information to adjust premiums, add or drop people from policies, or deny coverage. GINA has limits - it only covers people who work at an organization with more than 15 employees. Furthermore, GINA does not apply to people in the U.S military or veterans, and also does not apply to those who get health care from the Indian Health Services - as they receive protections from other federal agencies. Lastly, GINA does not apply to disability, long term care or life insurance. For more information on GINA, please check out our lesson plan “Genetics, jobs, and your rights”.

Slide 5

This presentation consists of 3 parts: ‘DNA databases’, ‘uses of DNA as a forensic tool’, and ‘limitations’. The first part of this lesson explores the DNA databases that are used to aid criminal investigation, how these databases of genetic information are created, and how their composition has changed over time. In the second part of the lesson plan, the focus shifts to the ways in which DNA can be used as a forensic tool to: (i) identify suspects; (ii) identify victims and missing persons; and (iii) provide evidence to support exonerations. The third and final part of the presentation acts to ensure students grasp that, although DNA is a powerful tool in forensic investigations, there are a number of limitations and controversies surrounding its use, from both technical and societal perspectives.

Slide 6

Criminal DNA databases are generally broken into two parts: DNA from offenders and DNA collected at crime scenes. A forensic database stores DNA profiles from samples collected at crime scenes, and an offender database stores DNA profiles from people who have been arrested, charged or convicted of a crime. The two databases are compared to one another in an effort to match offender DNA with DNA collected from crime scenes. The Nature Education article “Forensics, DNA Fingerprinting, and CODIS” provides a scientific overview of how DNA profiles are generated.

Slide 7

U.S. criminal DNA databases are overseen by various branches of government. In the United States, each state maintains its own database and may share information with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) database, known as the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). There are also international law enforcement databases, such as Interpol. Updated federal statistics as well as breakdowns by state are available on the FBI’s CODIS statistics website. According to this website, “as of April 2019, CODIS has produced over 464,308 hits assisting in more than 453,512 investigations.” CODIS now includes profiles of “arrestees,” meaning, people who have been arrested but not necessarily charged or convicted. As of 2018, 31 states and Puerto Rico have statutes allowing for DNA collection from certain arrestees (see Slide 10 and 11 for further details).

Slide 8

What types of crimes require a person to provide a DNA sample? In the US, states regulate the types of offenses that require offenders to provide a DNA sample, which is then added to a criminal DNA database. The statistics on the slide are taken from the National Conference of State Legislatures. A felony is considered the most serious category of crime and includes violent crimes, many sex offenses and many drug-related crimes. A misdemeanor, such as trespassing, is a criminal offense that is less serious than a felony and often punished by a fine or short jail term.

Slide 9

Misdemeanor offenses that require offenders to provide a DNA sample in some states can occur for graffiti painting and being part of a protest. Law enforcement agencies argue that collecting DNA samples from people who commit misdemeanors helps catch people who may have already committed more serious crimes, or who may in the future. Privacy advocates, such as the New York Civil Liberties Union, argue that the scope of DNA collection is too broad, will have negligible effects on public safety, and increases the risk of wrongful prosecutions and convictions.

Slide 10

In a 5-4 vote on the Maryland v. King case, the Supreme Court expanded the rights of law enforcement to collect DNA from people who were arrested. In 2009, Alonzo King was arrested for assault, and his DNA was collected in the course of the arrest. Maryland authorities used his DNA sample from the arrest to search a forensic DNA database. They found a match linking King to an unsolved rape from 2003, and he was charged and sentenced to life in prison for this crime. The Supreme Court ultimately decided it is constitutional to take DNA samples from arrestees for the purpose of linking a suspect to other possible crimes. In its majority opinion, the Court argued that a DNA profile is fundamentally the same as a fingerprint, used to confirm identity, and that people who are arrested should expect diminished privacy protections. The Court was sharply divided, and the dissenting justices argued that DNA collection from arrestees is a violation of the 4^th amendment, which forbids unreasonable search and seizure.

Slide 11

DNA collection from arrestees has expanded since the Supreme Court decision in 2013. Since the Maryland v. King case, U.S. state laws vary regarding the collection of DNA samples from arrestees to be added to an offender database. State laws can mandate DNA collection from those arrested or charged, but not convicted, for certain crimes. The map on this slide illustrates, as of 2019, states with DNA arrestee laws (shaded in blue), while those in white represent states with no DNA arrestee laws. This slide illustrates that the laws on DNA collection (if arrested) vary from state to state. For further information: National Conference of State Legislatures: DNA Arrestee Laws 2018 Update.

Slide 12

Since CODIS was established in 1994 it has continued to expand. This slide highlights how quickly the CODIS databases are growing. Between 2000 and 2019, over 13 million offender profiles were added to the offender DNA database. Evidence suggests that the databases grew more quickly as a result of the Maryland v. King Supreme Court decision, which allows DNA collection from arrestees. For updated CODIS statistics, please refer to https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/ndis-statistics.

Slide 13

Familial searching allows law enforcement to connect people in ways the original system did not anticipate. The second part of this presentation focuses on the uses of DNA as a forensic tool to: (i) identify suspects; (ii) identify victims and missing persons; and (iii) provide evidence to support exonerations. Before diving into the four case studies that illustrate these uses, the concept of ‘familial searching’ is explained.

A technique to search DNA databases, one that was not originally intended, is called ‘familial searching’. The original intent of CODIS was to find “perfect” matches - linking a possible criminal to a crime scene with the DNA matched on every single marker that was examined. Familial searching uses specialized software to intentionally search DNA databases to identify people whose DNA is similar, but not a perfect match, to DNA found at a crime scene. As we share part of our DNA with our biological relatives, the assumption is that the similarity in DNA occurs because the identified person is a family member of the actual suspect. This means that criminals who have never been arrested or convicted - and whose DNA has thus not been entered in an offender DNA database - can still be identified through a family member whose DNA is present in such a database. In the United States, as of 2019, crime labs in 11 states are conducting familial searching. On the other hand, Maryland and Washington DC have formally prohibited this method of identifying suspects. The use of familial searching is evolving, and a matter of debate within law enforcement, privacy, civil rights and legislative communities. For more information, please see: “Familial DNA searching- an emerging forensic investigative tool.” by Sara Debus-Sherrill and Michael B. Field, January 2019, Science & Justice.

Slide 14

Familial searching has been used to identify suspects. In the period of 1985-1988, there was a string of unsolved murders of black women in Los Angeles. Many of the victims were killed with the same gun, so police suspected it was a serial killer. In 2007, a murder took place that investigators were able to link to the 1980s murders through DNA evidence. The serial killer was given the nickname “The Grim Sleeper”, because police thought he had taken a break (or “slept”) for a long period of time between the killings. However, they now believe he probably never “slept.” When law enforcement compared the likely killer’s DNA against an offender DNA database, they did not find a perfect match. However, using familial searching, they did identify someone whose DNA was very similar: Christopher Franklin. Christopher Franklin was too young to be the murderer, but his father, Lonnie Franklin, was of an age where it was possible that he was the killer. Police obtained a DNA sample from Lonnie Franklin by following him to a restaurant and, with an officer posing as an employee, collected tableware and pizza crust with his DNA on it. Lonnie Franklin’s DNA was a perfect match with the DNA found at the crime scenes, and he was arrested. He was convicted in 2016 of the murders of ten women and girls, but police think he may have murdered more than 25 people. He was sentenced to death and is in jail in California as of June 2019.

Slide 15

Suspects are being identified not just through criminal databases - but also genealogy databases designed for researchers and hobbyists. After failing to find a match in the government-created databases, investigators in “The Golden State Killer” case uploaded what they believed to be the notorious rapist and murderer’s DNA to an open-source genealogy database, called GEDmatch. GEDmatch is a privately-created database that welcomes people to upload their DNA analysis from private companies like 23andMe or Ancestry.com, in the hopes of building a large community for people seeking familial connections. Law enforcement found a genetic connection in the database – a distant cousin of the suspected killer. Using genealogical research to construct a family tree, investigators narrowed down the possible suspects and, with additional DNA testing, an arrest was made. Joseph James DeAngelo is under arrest for the crimes and is awaiting trial as of June 2019.

This case is an example of how quickly a new technique can take hold. Though GEDmatch was not developed to be a legal tool, in the months after the arrest of the suspected “Golden State Killer”, law enforcement agencies used the database to make arrests in several other “cold cases.” Some people have reacted positively to this news by saying that any and all methods are justified in the pursuit of solving crimes. Others have voiced concern regarding the fact that if even one biological relative uploads their DNA to a genealogy database like GEDmatch, then some of their shared DNA is also part of a system that is now being used for law enforcement reasons. Additionally, decisions about law enforcement access to the GEDmatch database is largely in the hands of two private citizens who founded the organization. 

In May 2019, GEDmatch changed its terms of service so that DNA profiles are now by default opted out of use for law enforcement investigations. Users are able to opt-in if they wish to do so. As of June 2019, only 5% of the 1 million members of GEDmatch have opted-in. In December 2019 it was announced that GEDmatch was taken over by the forensic genomics firm Verogen.

Slide 16

Grandmothers in Argentina pioneered one of the applications of DNA in forensic investigations - using it as a tool to reunite separated biological relatives. During Argentina’s “Dirty War” (1976-1983), Argentina’s military dictatorship declared a war against those suspected of being left wing “communist opponents”. War tactics included killings, torture, abduction or the “disappearing” of children. Top officers gave the “disappeared” children away to military couples and pregnant people were major targets. Identities of children were erased. As a result, the “Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo” (Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo), organized in response to their grandchildren’s disappearance. Weekly demonstrations in front of the presidential palace gained international attention, including from geneticists.

In 1984, Dr. Mary-Claire King, a geneticist from the University of California, Berkeley teamed up with Dr. Ana Maria DiLonardo, a geneticist from Buenos Aires, Argentina. They developed a test that could identify a genetic link between the grandmothers and their grandchildren using mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is a part of our DNA that is generally passed down to offspring via the egg and not via the sperm. Thus, this type of DNA provides a genetic link from the grandchildren, via their biological mothers, to the Grandmothers, who were trying to find them.

For more information please see: “40 years later, the mothers of Argentina’s 'disappeared' refuse to be silent” by Uki Goñi, April 2017, The Guardian.

Slide 17

DNA can be used to exonerate people wrongly incarcerated, such as Darryl Hunt. Darryl Hunt was freed after serving 19 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. In 1984, he was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of journalist Deborah Sykes. In 1994, a DNA test showed that Darryl’s DNA did not match the DNA found at the crime scene, but nonetheless his appeal was rejected. He was exonerated in 2003 after further DNA testing proved that he was not the perpetrator.

DNA evidence collected at the crime scene was compared to a DNA offender database. They didn’t find a perfect match - but did find someone whose DNA was quite similar. With that information, investigators were able to narrow their search to the brothers of that person and, through their investigation, police identified Willard Brown as a suspect. Investigators were able to show that DNA from a cigarette discarded by Willard Brown matched the DNA found at the crime scene of Deborah Sykes’ murder. Following Brown’s confession, Darryl Hunt was exonerated. Hunt became an activist and educator, and was awarded $1.6 million dollars in damages from the city of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Sadly, Hunt took his own life in March 2016.

Slide 18

DNA is a powerful forensic tool, but it has its limitations. Forensic technologies are increasingly sophisticated, but crime scene conditions can make collecting and interpreting DNA complicated. People ’shed’ different amounts of DNA, and secondary and tertiary transfer of DNA can be sources of contamination. Investigators who rely on DNA evidence often face many technical challenges (see slide for details). Some of these challenges are described in detail in “How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions” by Naomi Elster, December 2017, JSTOR Daily. Taking these factors into account, it is important for students to realize that the mere presence of someone’s DNA at a crime scene is not necessarily sufficient for conviction. German investigators spent years on the hunt for a female serial killer, as they repeatedly found her DNA at multiple crime scenes. In truth, a female factory worker accidentally and repeatedly contaminated forensic laboratory materials with her own DNA. (“Germany's Phantom Serial Killer: A DNA Blunder,” May 2009, Time).

Another limitation of DNA as a crime solving tool is related to the available DNA at a crime scene. It may be limited in amount, of poor quality, and a mixture of many individuals’ genetic material; all of which can result in an incomplete DNA sample of the perpetrator. With an incomplete DNA sample from which to generate a profile, there is an increased risk of identifying the wrong person as a suspect. In 2013, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) performed a study to see how well different forensics labs across the US could identify suspects, working from samples with a varied degree of complexity. The results showed that for a simple sample with DNA from only 2-3 people, the participating labs identified suspects correctly or chose to label them “inconclusive”. However, for more complex samples, with DNA from multiple people at varied ratios, the participating laboratories did not give consistent results. In one example in this study, 69% of the forensic labs came to an incorrect identification. This highlights the limits of forensic technologies and the risks of incorrectly identifying someone as a suspect in an investigation. For more on this study see “NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): Variation observed and lessons learned.”

Slide 19

Advances in forensic DNA technologies might disproportionately affect certain populations. The growth in DNA collection has led to worries that existing racial biases in the American criminal justice system will be reinforced and amplified. US government data from the FBI (see 2016 data here) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (see most recent data here and here), have shown that communities of color are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system. This is particularly the case for Black, Hispanic and Native Americans. As can be seen on the graph on this slide, these communities are arrested, charged, and incarcerated at higher percentages than their representation in the US population. These racial differences translate into over-representation of DNA from Black, Hispanic and Native American people being collected in criminal databases.

With regards to familial searching (see slide 13), there is concern that a similarity in DNA profile can occur not just between biological relatives, but also between unrelated individuals. The latter would result in people being incorrectly and unfairly drawn into criminal investigations. The probability for DNA profiles of unrelated individuals to show high similarity increases as the number of people in the offender index grows and will disproportionately affect those populations that are over-represented in the DNA databases. For more information: “Potential for Incorrect Relationship Identification in New Forensic Familial Searching Techniques,” February 2012, Science Daily.

 

DNA, Crime, and Law Enforcement