Monthly Archives: August 2012

Arrestee DNA Law on Trial

Posted on by

Arrestee-DNA

During the late 1980s, Colorado enacted the first US DNA databank law, a law that required sex offenders to provide a DNA sample to law enforcement officials. This was based on the theory that a person convicted of a sex offense was likely to repeat the crime, and therefore, quick access to a DNA profile could identify a repeat offender. Other states enacted DNA laws, expanding the categories of individuals who must donate a DNA sample. Today, all states require the collection of DNA from sex offenders, and most states collect DNA from felony offenders. Many states obtain DNA from juveniles convicted of certain crimes and from individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors. Some states also require collection of DNA from probationers and parolees.

Taking DNA from persons arrested for certain crimes remains controversial. The federal government and about half of the states have laws that allow DNA sampling before conviction. Courts have ruled on both sides of the issue. In 2006, for example, the Minnesota court of appeals ruled that an individual’s privacy interests trumped the state’s interest in analyzing DNA. The court decided that portions of the state’s DNA law “that direct law-enforcement personnel to take a biological specimen from a person who has been charged but not convicted violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution.” Other courts have approved arrestee DNA collection laws, and supporters of the laws assert that the laws increase the efficiency of criminal investigations and save lives.

Now, the issue is headed toward the US Supreme Court. The case began in 2009 when Maryland police arrested Alonzo Jay King for first-degree assault. Following Maryland’s DNA Collection Act, personnel at the booking facility collected King’s DNA. Analysis revealed that it matched DNA evidence from a rape committed in 2003. Based on this hit, the State charged and convicted King of first degree rape. He was sentenced to life in prison. King appealed the conviction. The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, overturned King’s conviction, holding that the collection of his DNA violated the Fourth Amendment, because his expectation of privacy outweighed the State’s interests. Maryland appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

During July 2012, Chief Justice Roberts indicated that the Court will probably take the appeal. He also said that “given the considered analysis of courts on the other side of the split, there is a fair prospect that this Court will reverse the decision below.” Taking arrestee DNA may be here to stay.

Face(book)ing the Music

Posted on by

social mediaIn the previous posting, I mentioned that law enforcement agencies use social media in criminal investigations. Before turning back to more traditional forms of forensic analysis, I wanted to highlight more information about social media uses.

The August 2012 issue of Government Security News magazine includes the article, “Social media play a ‘significant and growing’ role in law enforcement.” The article describes the results of LexisNexis® Risk Solutions’ recent survey of 1,200 federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals. About 80% of the respondents claimed to use various types of social media to assist criminal investigations. The most popular uses of social media include identification of people and locations, gathering evidence, and discovering criminal activity. The most widely-used platforms include Facebook and YouTube. Most of the respondents said that their use of social media platforms has helped to solve crimes more quickly. They also said that almost 90% of the time, courts have upheld search warrants that relied on information culled from social media to establish probable cause.

In her CNBC posting, “Busted! Police Turn to Social Media to Fight Crime,” Cadie Thompson offered the views of Haywood Talcove, CEO of LexisNexis® Government Solutions. Talcove said that law enforcement officials often use as evidence images, postings, tweets, and other social media content. This raises the question: Why would anyone publicize incriminating evidence? “Criminals have that same desire to share and to show-off,” Talcove said. “I don’t think they can resist using these tools.”

In films, TV shows, and books, fictional criminal investigators turn to social media for clues. Your fictional heroes might want to follow their lead.

Using Media to Warm Cold Cases

Posted on by

 Cold case1

 

Evidence Technology Magazine recently posted an excerpt from Silvia Pettem’s book, Cold Case Research: Resources for Unidentified, Missing, and Cold Homicide Cases. Pettem describes how law enforcement agencies use media to generate leads on cold cases.

In one example, an unidentified body washed ashore on February 20, 1983 in Marin County, California. Although the body was decomposed, a pocket still held a keychain. The key fob advertised an auto sales company in Erie, Pennsylvania. The case was stored away until 2004 when Darrell Harris, an investigator with the Marin County Sheriff’s Office Coroner’s Division, contacted a newspaper reporter in Erie. The story, published in the Erie Times, provoked a response from a reader who said that he had a friend, Joseph Coogan, who had traveled to California in late 1982 or 1983 and then disappeared. Harris contacted every California agency with a beach-line jurisdiction in the area. He received an accidental drowning report from Monterey County about a man named Joseph Coogan, who had fallen from rocks on the coastline and had been swept out to sea. Further investigation confirmed that the John Doe was the body of Joseph Coogan.

Newspapers aren’t the only types of media used to awaken a cold case. Many law enforcement agencies post their cold cases on agency websites. For instance, the website of the City of San Antonio Police displays information about unsolved homicide cold cases with the aim of acquiring assistance from the public. The Cold Case Center™ website has links to information about cold cases from law enforcement agencies, as well as criminal justice and victim’s rights associations.

Law enforcement personnel also use social media to further an investigation. A search of Facebook and similar websites can uncover a subject’s friends, where they may be found, and photos of persons of interest. Investigators have created Facebook accounts for fictional people and then “friended” a person to access his or her wall. Why bother? Well, some people unintentionally help police by using their wall to brag about crimes that they have committed.

Bite Mark Evidence Losing its Bite?

Posted on by

No more bite mark evidence?

 

The validity of bite marks as evidence depends upon two assumptions: Teeth leave recognizable marks unique to an individual, and this uniqueness is transferred and recorded in the bitten substance. Bite mark evidence has played a key role in cases, such as the trial of Ted Bundy. Yet in recent years, critics argue that bite mark analysis is subjective and has never undergone thorough experimental validation. At least one former bite mark evidence expert agrees.

An August 6 article in The Clarion-Ledger (MS), “Bite Evidence in Doubt,” describes the radical change in views of dentist Michael West. He estimated that he has worked on 16,000 cases and testified at about 81 trials across the United States as a bite mark evidence expert. Many of the trials resulted in convictions.

West is no longer a true believer according to a 2011 deposition obtained by The Clarion-Ledger. “I no longer believe in bite-mark analysis,” West said. “I don’t think it should be used in court. I think you should use DNA. Throw bite marks out.”

That’s advice based on experience. In at least two cases in which the dentist testified, convictions have been reversed. During 2008, for example, DNA evidence identified the murderer of two girls. As a result, two men were released from prison, one who had served 15 years for murder and the other, 18 years.