The ACLU is challenging a California law that requires police to collect the DNA of all suspected felons.  Michael Risher an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco court Tuesday that the government should not be allowed to take the “genetic blueprint” of someone who hasn’t been convicted of a crime.  One-third of the 300,000 Californians arrested on felony charges each year are never convicted.  This does not stop the police from talking a DNA sample.

Risher said the voter-approved law allowing DNA testing after all felony arrests sacrifices privacy in exchange for questionable gains in identifying criminals.  The three-judge panel questioned whether DNA sampling is a major invasion of privacy.  They did, however, indicated that the California law may be vulnerable because of a year-old ruling in another case.  The case in question was decided by the federal appeals court in June 2009 ruling in a case from Las Vegas. In that case 2-1 decision said police violated the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches when they extracted DNA from a man who was under arrest – but was not suspected of any other crimes – so they could enter it into a criminal database.

Judge Milan Smith said DNA testing, taken with a swab from the inner cheek, is no more intrusive than fingerprinting and is “a really good way of identifying people.” He said Risher was asking government officials to be “Luddites (who) can’t use modern technology.”

If the California case is similar, “our hands are tied” and the court must overturn the law, Smith told Deputy Attorney General Daniel Powell, the state’s lawyer. Smith said the state would have to ask the full 27-judge court to order a new hearing before a larger panel, which would have the authority to overturn the Nevada ruling.

Powell argued that the current case is different because California has a law that authorizes post-arrest DNA testing and Nevada does not. He also said the California law protects privacy by making it a crime to release DNA information to anyone but a law enforcement officer.

In a news conference before Tuesday’s hearing, Attorney General Jerry Brown proclaimed the benefits of DNA evidence as “the fingerprint of the 21st century” and a powerful crime-fighting weapon. “This is no more a violation of privacy than you have when you give up your fingerprints,” he said.

The opinions in this article are not necessarily those of DNA Identifiers, the Blog Owners or Authors.

An arrest was made Wednesday June 7, 2010 of 57 year old   Lonnie David Franklin Jr. He has been charged with 10 counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. The killings include one man and the remainder, young black women. The “Grim Sleeper” moniker was applied by law enforcement due to a long, 14 year lull between murders from 1988 to 2002.

Franklin was reportedly a mechanic for a Los Angeles Police Department station near the center of the 1980’s murder spree. The majority of the killings were confined to a 2 mile radius in South Los Angeles, just a few miles east of the Hollywood Park Race Track. Several detectives, led by Dennis Kilcoyne, have been working full time on this case for years. ABC News reports that, although there were many suspects identified, they failed to zero in on Franklin. A newly adopted technique called familial matching provided the much needed clues to this investigation.

In April of 2008, California adopted an aggressive approach to a controversial crime fighting technique known as familial or “partial match” searching. The policy is aimed at identifying a suspect through DNA collected at a crime scene by looking for potential relatives in the states database. State Atty. General, Jerry Brown said the new approach was justified by violent crime plaguing California (2000 homicides per year), and said, “It would be used only when other leads had been exhausted”.

Partial or familial matching has been done in Britain for years with a 10-14% rate of catching perpetrators. The United States government employed a variation of this process in Kansas supporting the apprehension of Dennis Radar, the self described “BTK” serial killer.

In the case of Mr. Franklin, the suspect’s son was arrested and convicted in a felony weapons charge and swabbed for DNA in 2009. After being added to the California database, detectives were alerted regarding a partial match to evidence found at the “Grim Sleeper” crime scenes. Upon investigation of Franklin relatives a match was found to Lonnie Franklin.

With the stroke of Gov. Ted Strickland’s pen on April 6, 2010, experts say Ohio now has some of the best laws in the country to protect the innocent from wrongful convictions and put the right people behind bars.

Strickland, joined by a handful of men who were exonerated after serving years in prison for crimes they did not commit, signed Senate Bill 77. It sets statewide standards for retaining biological evidence, requires the taking of DNA from anyone arrested on a felony charge and requires new procedures for suspect lineups.

Goodman introduced the bill after a Dispatch investigation in January 2008 exposed widespread shortcomings in Ohio’s DNA law, including the derailing of prisoner DNA tests by systemic indifference or hostility.

In addition to requiring that DNA samples be taken from anyone convicted of a felony after July 1, 2011, the new law:

•Requires law-enforcement agencies to retain biological evidence for up to 30 years in murder and sexual-assault cases. The limit is five years when a defendant pleads guilty.

•Opens DNA testing to parolees and those on the sex-offender registry.

• Mandates blind suspect lineups, in which the officer presiding either does not know the identity of the true suspect or uses a photo-lineup technique in which only the witness can see pictures placed in folders.

•Gives an incentive for law-enforcement officials to record interrogations.
(excerpted from Jim Siegel of THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH)

Regardless of net worth, it is important for all individuals to have a basic estate plan in place.  This can be done with a family attorney or there are many online legal aid sites that can assist you in creating the proper document. Most often the biological children of deceased individuals have inheritance rights, DNA is being used more and more when estates are in question.

In some cases, previously unknown children can appear to claim part of the estate. Or, a greedy or unhappy family members may claim that a beneficiary is not a biological descendant of the deceased person. Depending on the timing of the claim, defending this claim could require exhumation or testing of autopsy specimens, neither of which is a pleasant process and which can be an expensive process.

DNA has emerged as a common tool in modern human identification and has magnificent and unparalleled applications in modern society. The best defense is a strong offense. In many cases proper legal registration of your DNA profile with your estate planner or attorney will help ensure legal and rightful administration of your estate, should the need arise.

The DNA relationship testing market has been growing steadily over the last twenty years.  Prices are decreasing and the easy of testing is increasing. Today, it is projected that the annual number of persons that will participate in some type of paternity or extended relationship test will exceed 1 million. In sharp contrast, it is estimated that less than 200,000 persons were tested in 1988. The increased demand for DNA testing has been fueled by greater public awareness of the power of DNA and the affordability and easy access to testing.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 2007 was a record year for births in the United States, there were 4,315,000 recorded births. Experts think that the increase has to do with a range of factors, including immigrants having more children, professional women delaying pregnancy until their 40s and a larger population of women in their 20s and 30s. These factors, coupled with the fact that 38.5% of all U.S. births in 2006 were from unwed mothers translates into an increasing need for education of families about the importance of knowing ones biological parents.

About DNA

DNA is the map of life and defines the essence of our individuality. Despite the size of the human genome, over 3.2 billion genetic markers, 99.9% of the DNA in all unrelated people in the world is identical. Thus, the vast differences observed in the human race are created from the minute differences in only 0.1% of DNA. An individual’s DNA can contain valuable information to help the lives of present and future generations. Locked in our DNA code are the secrets of our ancestry and medical conditions that scientists are only now beginning to understand.

PATERNITY

It is natural for families to want to know who the biological father of their baby is. Nationwide, approximately 30% of tested men are excluded as the biological father.  That means that 3 out of 10 test comes back as a negative result for paternity. A child has the right to the sense of identity that comes from knowing who both biological parents are. Knowledge of a child’s biological heritage is also very important in understanding future possible health risks. In addition, determining paternity gives a child legal right to receive financial support from the father and to inherit from the father.  This is the same if the mother is unknown.  In an era when adoption is a popular option it is important to remember that more and more people do not know either biological parent.

RELATIONSHIP TESTING

Relationship DNA testing can determine if a long lost brother or sister, grandparent, aunt or uncle is truly related to the family in question. DNA testing can also reveal if twins are identical or fraternal. Modern DNA testing can provide answers for a new world of relationships. Paternity testing can also be performed indirectly by testing relatives of an alleged father.

FORENSIC PATERNITY

If a person is deceased or unavailable for testing which is often the case in the question of estate settlement, forensic DNA testing can be an invaluable tool.  DNA can be found on evidence that is decades old. Common sources of forensic DNA evidence include: fingernail clippings, hair with roots or follicles, chewing gum, used beverage containers, eyeglasses, hats, lickable stamps or envelopes, teeth, post mortem tissue, a toothbrush, or cigarette butt.  The results that can be looked for from each item differs and it is best to contact your laboratory to see what items they recommend. For more infomation on DNA testing and how it can asssit you please contact DNA Identifiers.  Remeber regardless of you net worth it is important to have an estate plan in place and DNA can be an important part of your plan.

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court of California (January 25,2010) ruled 5-2 to authorize the use of “John Doe” DNA arrest warrants. California law, consistent with the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment holds that prosecution for an offense commences when an arrest warrant is issued and “names or describes the defendant with the same degree of particularity required for a complaint.”

In a brief overview DNA.gov discusses the proper preparation of a John Doe DNA Warrant. It states that “if no offender match occurs in cases which statutes of limitation are an issue, consideration may be given, in consultation with the prosecutor to prepare a John Doe warrant. These types of warrants can identify the perpetrator according to his or her DNA profile. The 13 loci profile generated by the crime laboratory should be clearly printed on the face of the warrant”.

In a the case of Paul Eugene Robinson, a man charged with raping a Sacramento woman in 1994 a warrant was issued three days before the 6-year statute of limitation ran out in August of 2000, this warrant describing only the suspect’s DNA profile. That profile was then linked to Robinson through the California Department of Justice Laboratory SDIS system. Mr. Robinson had been convicted on sexual assault charges previously. {JURIST, Sarah Miley}

Supporters of the John Doe DNA indictments say it is a legitimate way to vindicate victims, prevent offenders from escaping justice, and prevent future crimes. Without the start of prosecution, a case cannot be tried once the statute of limitations has run. This means that if a suspect is identified one day beyond the statutory limit, he cannot be tried for the offense.

Critics argue that issuing an arrest warrant based on a DNA profile is a disingenuous device of the prosecution that evades the statute of limitations and infringes on the constitutional rights of the accused. In the dissenting opinion in the Robinson case, Judge Carlos Moreno stated “the warrant did not become effective until a fictitious name is replaced with the suspect’s real name, and at that point the statute of limitations had expired”.

While the John Doe warrant appears to be in place in California there are still many challenges for it to face before it becomes common practice.

There are many organizations world wide that are trying desperately to help find missing children.  South African Provincial Police are trying to set up a National DNA Database of Children to assist in locating missing children.  Officers are trying to use media, movie theaters, banks and even air lines to show video clops showing pictures and details of the over 114 children who are missing in the provinces.  They are also planning to ask malls, trains and taxi operators to distribute pamphlets with photos and details of the missing children

Police announced these plans as officers continued searching for six-year-old Okuhle and three-year-old Mabaxole Maqhubela, the latest additions to the province’s list of missing children. They disappeared in Laingsburg last week on their way from East London to Cape Town by taxi.

During a weekly press briefing, provincial visible policing head Robbie Roberts, said missing children were one of the “biggest concerns” in the South Africa.  According to Roberts “on a daily basis a lot of children are reported missing.”

Roberts warned parents not to leave their children alone or let them out of their sight.  “And ask yourself when you put your children in the care of somebody, do you really know that person? Do you really trust that person?”

Roberts urged parents to tag their children, including on the tag the child’s name and the parents’ contact details, especially when taking their children to a large public area like a beach. “It’s unbelievable how many children get lost on a beach in one day,” he said.

Roberts said children needed to be taught their home address and parents’ cellphone or landline number. “Once recovered, we find it difficult to get this information from children.” He also urged parents to take photographs of their children so they would always have a recent one.

Provincial Police Commissioner Mzwandile Petros had tasked Roberts, other NGOs, to come up with a more effective plan to tackle the problem.

In the most recent missing children case, Roberts said officers had been unable to find recent photographs of Okuhle Maqhubela and her brother, Mabaxole. The brother and sister went missing from a petrol station in Laingsburg at midnight during a trip from East London to Cape Town, where they would have been reunited with their mother.

Roberts said police in the province would approach the national office to have an identity kit they had created for children, to be distributed in the Western Cape and the rest of the country, if approved.

Once filled out and completed, the kit would include details of the child, a recent photograph, his or her fingerprints, a DNA sample, his or her blood type and details of his or her parents. Dessie Rechner, founder of the NGO Pink Ladies which helps police with search operations, said she was “extremely excited” about the identity kit and proposed database.

Missing children are a huge concern international. Many laboratories are trying to assist in the search for missing children. DNA Identifiers offers a Child Safety Identification Kit like the one described in the article to help keep children safe.

Child Safety Kit

More about this article

Associated Press Writer, JEFF CARLTON, released a story on January 7, 2010, regarding a convict who had been convicted on rape charges of a Texas Tech University student in 1985. The wrongly convicted man, Tim Cole, was an Army Veteran who died in a prison in 1999 at the age of 39.  A 2008 DNA test proved his innocence, 13 years after another man confessed in a series of letters to Lubbock County prosecutors and judges.

Cole’s family sought the pardon. The State Governor, Perry, though expressing sympathy, maintained he didn’t believe he was legally permitted to issue one. However, Cole’s brother tells The Associated Press that a Perry aide says the governor will pardon Cole.

La Times

Paternity for many is a tough issue, both emotionally and legally. Paternity is assigned to men and boys in a few ways. The first is by marriage. Men are automatically assumed to be the father if they are married to the mother or in many states if they attempted to marry the mother and did not do so in a legal manner. The second is by voluntary acknowledgment. This is a typically a form that is signed in the hospital prior to the release of the mother and child. The third is by court judgment.

Most if not all states have a law that looks something like this:

(1) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(a) He and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage;

(b) He and the mother of the child were married to each other and the child is born within three hundred days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity;

(c) Before the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, even if the attempted marriage is, or could be, declared invalid and the child is born during the invalid marriage or within three hundred days after its termination by death, annulment, dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity; or

(d) After the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child have married each other in apparent compliance with law, whether or not the marriage is, or could be declared invalid, and he voluntarily asserted his paternity of the child, and:

(i) The assertion is in a record filed with the state registrar of vital statistics;

(ii) Agreed to be and is named as the child’s father on the child’s birth certificate; or

(iii) Promised in a record to support the child as his own.

(RCW 26.26.116 Presumption of paternity in context of marriage. on leg.wa.gov)

While this law might seem reasonable to many it does not take into account that it is estimated that 40% of wives will have an affair at some point in their marriage (www.caughthercheating.com) What if that child is not the husbands?

The second way is for the father and mother to sign Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity form at the hospital when you have your baby. The hospital staff will give you this form and help you complete it. When you and the child’s father sign the Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity form, the father’s name will be placed on the birth certificate.

If you and the baby’s father are unable to sign the Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity form at the hospital, you may complete it at home. Your signature must be witnessed by someone over 18 years old, and by a person not named on the voluntary acknowledgment.

You don’t have to be the biological father to sign this form there is no proof required you are stating you are the father and will be responsible the moment you sign this from. Most states but not all have laws that allow you to challenge paternity that is assigned based on the Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity. They typically have a set time period with in which you can contest your paternity.

The third way is to have paternity assigned to you by a court. This can happen if the alleged father does not responded to a woman’s claim for paternity or if the Judge or Jury feels that it is in the best interest of the child. For example a section of Missouri’s bill requires courts to balance the best interests of the child and the hardships of the man who is contesting paternity regardless of a DNA test proving that he is not the father.

“James McClendon knows he’s not the biological father of his ex-girlfriend’s 16-year-old son. He’s got a DNA test to prove it. But his wages are trimmed each month to pay thousands in child support debt. McClendon, who lives in St. Louis, has been fighting a 10-year legal battle to overturn a paternity ruling that says he’s the child’s father. Between legal bills, supporting his three biological children and several failed jobs, he’s built up $25,000 in child support debt.” (States move to allow DNA paternity challenges, By LEE LOGAN The Associated Press www.kansascity.com)

Stories like this are not all that uncommon unfortunately and have been a leading reason why in over 30 states laws are being or have been enacted to allow men to challenge paternity with a DNA test. A major force lobbying for changes to paternity laws is Carnell Smith, an engineer in Atlanta. Smith successfully lobbied for a Georgia law that allows men to challenge paternity at any time. Smith who calls himself a victim of “paternity fraud,” used this same law to erase his own paternity ruling in 2003. Carnell Smith has formed a national organization lobbing for similar laws in other states.

This canine mystery solver is quickly becoming a popular within the dog community and in the media. Both ABC and NBC, as well as other mainstream media, bloggers and animal lovers with websites, have run stories on breed testing over the last few years.

NBC’s story ran 10/20/06 When Today’s hostess Meredith tested her own dog using the Canine Heritage™ XL Breed Test. This test uses cheek swabs. For step by step instructions see: http://www.dog-dna.com/tests/instructions-results.php. To see the full show visit http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&fg=&vid=e1ce80dc-75f9-4456-ad3c-d63a56e4aa9c&from=00

ABC’s story ran 5/20/2007 they tested Becky and Alex Shelton’s dog Sol using a blood test. This is a test that needs to be preformed at a Veterinarian’s office. Vets do charge fees for drawing the blood sample that would be in addition to the testing fees. For the full story see http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3193494

Both tests were very informative and it appears the breeds that made up these two dogs were identifiable. There are some times were this is not the case. For example many labs don’t test for “Pit Bull” and any dogs that include this breed would show as unidentified breed or something similar, or just not show up at all.

It is important to do your research on which ever type of testing you decide to move froward with. Most labs will have email addresses or phone numbers where you can verify which breeds are tested.

Wildlife experts in Nottingham have been taking DNA Samples from peregrine falcon chicks in an effort to protect the species from thieves, according to an article in the BBC News.

Apparently it is common for thieves to rob falcon nests for chick that can then be trained for falconry.  The purpose of the data base is to be able to identify whether birds found, dead or alive, or birds being used for falconry were born in the wild or in captivity.

Nottingham Local wildlife trust, working with Nottingham Trent University and with the National Wildlife Crime Unit are working on constructing a DNA database in order to track and prosecute people who are raiding the nests of falcons.

For more information:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/8044260.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8044511.stm