Download DNA databases Rape in the US Victims States with Offender Laws

2/5/2013
Justification for DNA Databasing
DNA databases



FRNSC 100
Dr. Jeni Smith
Rape in the US
Victims
1993




Rape
Att. Rape
1994
160,000 168,000
152,000 149,000
312,000
Sexual Assault
173,000
Unknown Suspect
1 in 5
317,000
117,000
1 in 3
Source: “National Crime Victimization Survey”
Bureau of Justice Statistics
April 1996, September 1996 (Preliminary)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs
Opposition to DNA Databasing


In the early 90s, the DNA community realized that DNA types could be
used to do more than just “confirm” an individual was present or
involved in a criminal act. DNA types (RFLP profiles), stored in a
database, could be used to proactively link and solve crimes just like
fingerprints were being used. Also, DNA could be used to identify
human remains of missing persons.
Rapes could be linked together by DNA typing the various “unknown”
semen from rapists and crime scenes. This created “investigative”
leads.
Statistics showed that rapists were “recidivists” (i.e. they repeated
their crimes overagain). If a person was convicted of rape, then their
DNA could be stored in a database to be compared to “unknown
suspect” rapes. If they continued to rape women after their release
from prison, they would be caught again because their DNA type was
in the database and cases would be solved.
Rape in the US- Recidivism
Mean Age at First Offense
Detected Sexual Assaults
Undetected Sexual Assaults
More than 1 Offense
18.8
2.8
5.2
67.1%
Source: “Undetected Recidivism among Rapists and
Child Molesters” Groth, Longo, McFadin, 1982
States with Offender Laws
October 1997
The concept of DNA databasing was hotly
contested and there was a strong opposition
from the ACLU and attorneys such as Peter
Neufeld and Berry Scheck. These are the two
attorneys who started project innocence. Also
involved in the OJ Simpson case.
Privacy concerns were at the center of the
discussion
15
Enacted (48)
Pending (2)
10
5
0
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
1
2/5/2013
Building of the Combined DNA Index System
(CODIS)





Building of the CODIS System






Today, over 180 public law enforcement laboratories
participate in NDIS across the United States. Internationally,
more than 60 law enforcement laboratories in over 30
countries use the CODIS software for their own database
initiatives. International laboratories using the CODIS software
do not have any connectivity to the United States CODIS
system.
COmbined DNA Index
System (CODIS)
FBI sponsored software
development
Software provided free to
all states and various
countries
States passed laws to
establish their local and
state databases
CODIS was built “from the bottom up”- Each state had to pass DNA
legislation in order to set up the DNA databasing capability. It took
several years for this to happen
The DNA Identification Act of 1994 authorized the use of DNA data for
forensic analysis and formalized CODIS. It is the first Federal legislation
concerning forensic Science
By October 1998, CODIS became operational on a national level (NDIS)
because all 50 states had passed laws allowing them to collect and
store DNA profiles from convicted offenders
As of 2004, all 50 states along with Puerto Rico, the U.S. Army and the
FBI were CODIS participants.
Addition of Arrestee's DNA into CODIS
States began expanding their DNA laws to include more
categories of convicted offenders. The original laws only
collected from individuals who committed serious felonies like
murder and rape. For example, the addition of DNA profiles
from individuals arrested for burglary increased the number of
cases linked together by DNA typing.

Some states have enhanced their DNA database laws to allow
for the collection and comparison of DNA from people who are
arrested for crimes. This means that even though a person
has not been convicted of a crime, their DNA can be compared
to profiles in the Forensic index. If an arrestee's profile
matches, they can then be charged with that crime.
There is currently not a federal law that allow for DNA
collection from people arrested for a federal violation.
CODIS Hierarchy
US CODIS System

The CODIS project began in 1990 as a collaboration among 14 forensic
laboratories. The FBI developed the CODIS software and then
provided it for free to laboratories as they developed the capability to
do DNA typing
CODIS is implemented as a distributed database with three hierarchical
tiers. All three levels contain forensic and convicted offender indexes

NDIS

State Databases (SDIS)

Local City/county Databases (LDIS)
Local DNA Index System (LDIS) is installed at crime laboratories is
operated by police departments or sheriffs' offices. DNA profiles
originated at the local level can be transmitted to the State and national
levels.
State DNA Index System (SDIS) allows local laboratories within that
State to compare DNA profiles. SDIS is operated by the agency
responsible for implementing and monitoring compliance with the
State's convicted offender statute.
National DNA Index System (NDIS) is the highest level of CODIS enables
qualified State laboratories that are actively participating in CODIS to compare
DNA profiles. NDIS is maintained by the FBI under the authority of the DNA
Identification Act of 1994.
Tallahassee, FL
2
2/5/2013
Several Indexes Categorize the Profiles Entered into
CODIS
CODIS Indices
Convicted Offender – contains DNA profiles of individuals convicted of
crimes.

Arrestees – contains profiles of arrested persons (if state law permits the
collection of arrestee samples).

Forensic – contains DNA profiles developed from crime scene evidence,
such as semen stains or blood.

Missing Persons – contains DNA reference profiles from missing persons.

Convicted
Offender or
Arrestee
Forensic Index
Crime Scene
Samples


Unidentified Humans (Remains) – contains DNA profiles developed from
unidentified humans and remains.

Unidentified
Persons
CODIS Searches
Missing Persons

Biological Relatives of Missing Persons – contains DNA profiles voluntarily
contributed from relatives of missing persons.


In 2000 the FBI Laboratory developed the National Missing Person
DNA Database (NMPDD) Program for the identification of missing
and unidentified persons.

STR, Y-STR and mtDNA can be entered into the Missing Persons
indexes of CODIS.
NMPDD uses 3 indexes in NDIS to enter DNA profiles that can be
searched against each other

Unidentified Human (Remains)

Missing Persons

Biological Relatives of Missing Persons


NDIS-National Database



Has STR (nuclear and Y) and mtDNA
profiles in database
contains over 10,484,400 offender
profiles and 412,500 forensic
profiles as of January 2012.
“Investigation Aided,” tracks the
number of criminal investigations
where CODIS has added value to
the investigative process. As of
January 2012, CODIS has produced
over 171,800 hits assisting in more
than 165,100 investigations.
NDIS
DNA profiles from an “unknown” sample from a crime can be searched
against other unknown samples in the Forensic Index. These searches link
crimes together.
DNA profiles from an “unknown” sample from a crime can also be search
within the Convicted Offender and/or Arrestee Indices, if that state is
authorized to collect and database DNA samples from arrestees). If there is
a candidate match, the laboratory will go through procedures to confirm
the match and, if confirmed, will obtain the identity of the suspected
perpetrator.
Once a match is identified, the laboratories involved in the match exchange
information to verify the match and establish coordination between their
two agencies. The match of the forensic sample against a record in the
index may be used to establish probable cause to obtain an evidentiary
DNA sample from the suspect.
The laboratory can then perform a DNA analysis on the known biological
sample from the suspect so that this analysis can be presented as evidence
in court.
DNA data is accepted at NDIS


DNA data generated through PCR STR technology, Y
chromosome STR (Y STR) technology, and mtDNA technology
are accepted at NDIS.
Y STR and mtDNA data is only searched with the missing
person related indexes.
Core CODIS Loci for PCR-STR



CSF1PO, FGA, THO1, TPOX
VWA, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820

D8S1179, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51

D21S11
3
2/5/2013
Data Acceptance “rules”







The DNA data must be generated in accordance with the FBI Director’s
Quality Assurance Standards;
DNA Identification Act of 1994
Established regulations controlling DNA forensic/database
laboratories
Provided for funding for establishment/improvement of state
and local forensic DNA Labs
Required the FBI Director determine DNA standards for the
community via DNA Advisory Board

Standards issued in October of 1998

Compliance required for participation in NDIS and receipt
of federal DNA funding

All forensic DNA laboratories must be accredited within 2
years of issuance of the standards

The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that is accredited by an
approved accrediting agency;
The DNA data must be generated by a laboratory that undergoes an
external audit every two years to demonstrate compliance with the FBI
Director’s Quality Assurance Standards;


The DNA data must be one of the categories of data acceptable at NDIS,
such as convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, legal, forensic (casework),
unidentified human remains, missing person or a relative of missing
person;
The DNA data must meet minimum loci requirements for the specimen
category;
The DNA PCR data must be generated using PCR accepted kits; and
Participating laboratories must have and follow expungement procedures
in accordance with federal law.
DNA Identification Act of 1994

FBI Director’s DNA Standards
Participation in the National DNA Index
and or receipt of federal funds for
improvement required:





Compliance with the FBI Director’s standards
Protection of the privacy of the individual’s
DNA profiles in the database
Mandatory external proficiency tests every
180 days
FBI Director’s DNA Standards

Issued in October of 1998
Compliance required for participation in
NDIS and receipt of federal DNA funding
All forensic DNA laboratories must be
accredited within 2 years of issuance of the
standards
FBI Director’s Quality Standards
(Now called FBI Director's Quality Standards)








Quality Assurance Program
Organization and management
Personnel
Facilities
Evidence Control
Validation
Analytical Procedures
Equipment Calibration & Maintenance






Reports
Proficiency Testing
Corrective Action
Audits
Safety
Subcontractors
4
2/5/2013
CODIS In Pennsylvania
Audit Document

The FBI Laboratory developed a single
comprehensive audit document:

Specific for monitoring compliance to the FBI
Director's quality assurance standards
There are 4 CODIS labs in PA. The PA State
Police are in charge of the SDIS. The statistics
for PA SDIS as of Nov. 2011 are:
• 261,207 offender profiles
• 9,733 casework profiles

Applies to both casework and convicted offender DNA
laboratories
• 3,973 investigations aided
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/clickmap.htm
First Technical Working Group in
Forensic Science (TWGDAM)





Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods
(TWGDAM)
Members of TWGDAM included forensic scientists from
various local, state and federal laboratories.
Issued QA/QC Guidelines in 1991. These guidelines
were very important in admissibility hearings concerning
the admissibility of DNA typing
Revised TWGDAM Guidelines were issued in 1995 to
include mitochondrial DNA testing
Became SWGDAM
Familial Searches of DNA databases


DNA is inherited from parents so DNA profiles from
siblings and off spring will share portions of a DNA
profile.
“Familial Searching” is an intentional or deliberate
search of the database conducted after a routine
search for the purpose of potentially identifying close
biological relatives of the unknown forensic sample
associated with the crime scene profile.
Scientific Working Group on
DNA Methods (SWGDAM)




Formerly TWGDAM
SWGDAM, serves as a forum to discuss, share, and evaluate
forensic biology methods, protocols, training, and research to
enhance forensic biology services as well as provide
recommendations to the FBI Director on quality assurance
standards for forensic DNA analysis.
Maintains and updates the FBI Director's Quality Assurance
Standards
Maintains and updates the audit documents associated with
the Quality Assurance Standards.
Familial Searching is still not done in every
state as it has been controversial

Three States conduct familial searching

Colorado-Denver

California

Virginia
Pennsylvania has legislation pending to consider
familial searching
5
2/5/2013
Grim Sleeper case in California solved by
familial search of DNA database



Serial killer responsible for at least 10 murders in Los
Angeles, CA beginning in the mid 80s. The murders
stopped from 1988-2002 and then began again.
DNA search of California database found a profile that
was a partial match to the crime scene samples from the
Grim Sleeper. The son of the suspect had been arrested
for felony weapons charge and his DNA profile had been
added to the SDIS.
References


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/codis/codisand-ndis-fact-sheet
http://www.dna.gov/solving-crimes/coldcases/howdatabasesaid/
57-year-old Lonnie David Franklin Jr has been arrested for
the crime
6