Following accusations that San Francisco police used the DNA of a woman obtained after a sexual assault investigation to link her to an unrelated crime, a proposed state bill seeks to put an end to the practice.
On Monday, Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, Assemblymember Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, and San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin announced the introduction of Senate Bill 1228, also called Genetic Privacy for Sexual Assault Victims.
The legislation would prohibit law enforcement agencies throughout the state from retaining DNA from rape kits and using them in searchable databases used for purposes unrelated to sexual assaults.
According to Boudin’s office, federal law already prohibits DNA from sexual assault victims being placed in the national database Combined DNA Index System, also known as CODIS. However, there is no state law prohibiting the practice.
In addition to prohibiting California law enforcement agencies from using the DNA of sexual assault victims, AB 1228 would also prohibit law enforcement agencies from using the DNA of sexual assault victims’ close contacts for anything other than the sexual assault investigation.
The bill also calls for the state’s Committee on Revision of the Penal Code to study whether further legislation is needed to safeguard the privacy of Californians who’ve submitted DNA as part of a rape investigation, and to figure out whether a forensic oversight board is needed.
“Victims of sexual assault should be encouraged and supported in coming forward to undergo sexual assault examinations to identify their perpetrator,” Boudin said in a statement. “Instead, the practice by a police crime lab that my office exposed treats victims like criminals. It not only violates their privacy, but it dissuades victims from reporting sexual violence — which makes us all less safe.”
“Sexual assault is among the worst things that any person can experience, and we must do everything in our power to support and protect survivors who make the brave choice to come forward,” Wiener said. “It is an unbelievable violation to use survivors’ DNA — given expressly for the purpose of finding or prosecuting a perpetrator — to incriminate them. Sexual assault exams are traumatic enough as it is; we don’t need to create additional reasons for survivors to forgo them. ”
“We must do all we can to support survivors of sexual assault. This legislation sends the message they can trust the criminal justice system and come forward to report their cases,” Ting said.
Last month, Boudin accused San Francisco police of using DNA voluntarily submitted by a woman after a 2016 sexual assault in a recent search for suspects in an unrelated suspected crime. Boudin’s office has since dropped all charges against the woman in the recent criminal case.
Boudin alleged the practice isn’t limited to San Francisco and is routine with law enforcement agencies across the state, but said it’s illegal under Marsy’s Law, the California Victim’s Bill of Rights Act of 2008.
Police Chief Bill Scott has said the Police Department’s existing DNA policies are within state and national laws, but Scott has since moved to end the practice.
Scott said on Monday he is in support of the proposed state bill.
“When revelations came to our attention about our department’s possible misuse of a DNA profile, I ordered an immediate change to our crime lab practices assuring that it doesn’t happen again,” he said. “We promptly implemented an interim policy change, and we are currently engaging with the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office and California Department of Justice on permanently revised policies to protect the DNA of survivors, victims, and all whose cooperation we depend on when we investigate crimes.”
If Weiners for it, I’m against it.
If Law enforcement can track everyone else’s DNA and then charge them for crimes committed, why make an exception?
Soft on crime is a failure.
So should all of us just go ahead and submit our DNA to the police so they have it on file? If not, why not?
Whatever it takes to keep more criminals freely roaming our neighborhoods… seems to be the mantra.
Let’s protect the criminals even more. If they have nothing to worry about what’s the problem then. I’m sorry there arrest would be from the DNA of a rape kit. But there is always that possibility if you live that life style you may have been putting yourself at risk already running with the wrong crowd that has no ethics or cares of how they treat those around them. Heading down the sewer pipe really fast with this
Chesa is trying to cause as much chaos as possible before the voters recall this dirtball.
I’m generally in favor of the government not using personal information for purposes other than which it was intended but I am having a hard time understanding the arguments in favor of this bill. Does being a victim give a person special latitude to commit their own crime? Would a victim really think that maybe they shouldn’t submit DNA because at some future date they might decide to become a criminal?
Part of the story is false-positives. A DNA “profile” is not a full sequencing but is a measure of a small number of loci. The exact number of loci used has changed over time but it is on the order ot 10’s of loci. Given a large number of people and over time it is guaranteed there will be false positives.
Search results using a DNA “profile” should be confirmed with corroborating evidence before seriously considering somebody as a suspect – but police don’t always do that. This is at least one objective reason for innocent people to not want to be included in a database of criminals.
Also, as mentioned by others above, there are many people who feel strongly about not being listed in a massive government database because it is the government.
There are enough problems with reporting of sexual assaults, there is no reason to give victims another reason to decide not to report.
@Xennial,
Sound arguments.
I wonder how these legislators voted on the law that shares personally identifiable information from the Department of Justice firearm Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) database with private research groups even though there is no legitimate reason to share such details and certainly has nothing to do with the purpose for which the data is collected.
Another Wiener bill? That’s Wiener on the left.
https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/759872134365663232?s=20&t=3gbe06p4INtqbkcTS-5Rkw
So, if the police take a victim’s fingerprints from a recovered stolen item in order to differentiate them from those of the perp, does that mean they couldn’t keep those prints on file in case a crime was later committed by that person? More and more rules to help criminals to get away with their crimes.
So if an D/A withholds evidence, is that a crime? (It is, btw). But those rules apparently don’t apply to Chesa…
Would have expected this from Wiener and Ting. Two devote socialists bent on destroying society.
So the police should not use every tool available to them to capture the criminals. Gotcha!
Sounds about right in this state …
Maybe you should read the 4th amendment again?
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Now jwb is an “expert” on constitutional law.
Please advise the jurisdictions in which you can practice.
Now watch him deflect .
🙄
Well Glenn tell us does the IV amendment say “the police should use every tool available to them to capture the criminals” or not?
I will wait for your answer.
So JWB
What part of this is unreasonable? Please define it. Maybe you can teach me something, just like you did with pointint out the fourth amendment. Does that mean there are amendments 1, 2 and 3 as well?
Now seriously, I am no attorney. But, I see nothing unreasonable with the police using the tools (DNA & Technology) available to them to solve a crime. But maybe you don’t want crime resolved? Maybe you are okay with criminals stealing your packages, robbing the camera store and putting your (and others) lives at risk.
@ Parent you posted:
“So the police should not use every tool available to them to capture the criminals. Gotcha!”
and in response I told you that the Constitution sets limits on the tools the police can use.
but by all means keep digging …..
JWB
Well your answer to Glen provides an insight to your (flawed) mind.
You are really suggesting that the police should not use all tools available to them … wow … you are a prime example of what is wrong with our society right now. Very sad … very sad.
And JWB
You still cannot define the word reasonable, can you? Deflecting as Glen stated you would.
Please show me case studies, precedent, something other than your opinion where it says it is unreasonable on the federal level. You say the constitution sets limits, and that limit is ‘reasonable’, so define that limit without using your opinion. Or will you deflect again?
@ parent
My was in response to your comment. Please point out where you used “reasonable” in your original comment?
Whether accessing DNA from rape kits for possible criminal prosecution of the rape victims is reasonable or not will be for the courts to determine, it’s really not for me, Glenn or you to decide.
But you just seem either unable to admit that your statement that the police should use EVERY tool available was either dumb, or you don’t understand the limits on the tools put on the police by among other things the VI. Amendment.
There is no deflection by the way. It’s pretty simple you said A and I told you that may want to read B. That’s it.
sorry for the typos:
First line is should say my comment was in response ….
and of course IV Amendment and not VI Amendment.
@parent: “So the police should not use every tool available to them to capture the criminals. Gotcha!”
Correct. They should only use reasonable searches within the bounds of the 4th amendment.
Here are some examples of “tools” the police should not use: cruel and unusual punishment, torture, dismemberment, kidnapping family members of suspects to coerce/extort a false confession, executing people without a trial, etc.
I don’t have to provide a specific definition of “reasonable” according to the 4th amendment to know it isn’t “every tool available” as you said.
Principles of innocent until proven guilty means you hold the affirmative burden of showing this particular tool is reasonable for use; the burden is not on us to show the tool is unreasonable until at least an initial case has been presented on why it might be considered reasonable.
JWB
So my first statement is asking you to define what is unreasonable. It is literally the FIRST thing I wrote there. I then wrote, ‘please define it’. But hey, maybe that was too much for you.
I will not admit my statement that police should use every available tool to solve a crime is dumb. I do not believe it to be ‘dumb’, though some of the words in these responses is pretty ‘dumb’.
I am asking what are the limits, by asking for a definition of the word ‘reasonable’.
And since you cannot answer that, you are deflecting.
JWB. Seeing that they freely gave the DNA sample along with the persons that there trying to catch I doubt the fourth would cover it. All DNA from that kit would have to be run to find the criminal, and there own DNA comes up in another case it seems that should not be overlooked. Quit supporting criminals
Xennial
You provide some examples of bad tactics; cruel and unusual punishment, torture, dismemberment, kidnapping family members of suspects to coerce/extort a false confession, executing people without a trial, etc … but are those really tools?
yep, I am making a distinction between tactics and tools. In the SFcase, no one was tortured, kidnapped, murdered, … they voluntarily submitted their DNA. They were then found guilty of an unrelated crime. What is unreasonable about that?
@ sick of it
Once again I ONLY addressed the blanket statement whether or not the police can use every tool available.
I did not address whether in the example of using rape kits, that tool would or would not be constitutional I understand that you feel that you’re ae expert on constitutional law. Fair enough.
But to your more philosophical point about “Quit supporting criminals” you realize that telling women that reporting a rape that they give up freely their DNA sample is actually making women less likely to report rape crimes? So have you considered that your may actually supporting criminals yourself? Just a thought.
JWB
If they are afraid of giving a DNA sample or reporting a rape because of that. Then it is there own guilt of knowing there is something against them. Quit protecting the criminals. A honest person that has nothing hide would probably have no problem with it. Think of the past crimes that have been solved from people having the ancestry done with the private companies. It’s the new finger print
JWB: You don’t seem to be doing very well here, so I’ll help. First, point out the irony and hypocrisy of those saying they have nothing to hide even while they are posting anonymously. That’s ridiculous. They are just so angered by the crime that they are willing to forego their rights. Those out of date racist white guys who wrote that Constitution thingy just had no clue apparently and we need to make the transaction that we can give up a bunch of those rights in exchange for other stuff. I will give up my rights to a jury of my peers for a good Far Side T-shirt for example.
Thanks TDL but I think I do just fine. Anybody can see the hypocrisy.
Of course the Constitution is not a cafeteria menu where you simply pick what you may want. I’m sure there lots of folks who have no interest in having a gun, but who cares? I doesn’t mean you can simply ignore the II. Amendment. I would guess lots of non-religious don’t really need the part of the I. Amendment which says ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? How many people here will ever plead the V. Amendment?
And how ridiculous is comparing reporting a rape with sending a sample to Ancestry.com. Do you think the IRS should just make everybody’s tax return public? I mean after all how many people submit their financials to a private lender to get a mortgage?
And clearly sick of it thinks it’s no biggie to rape somebody who may have committed a crime in the past. Or why would he try to protect rapists?
JWB
Nice way to twist words. Rape is never good no matter what life style you live. But to protect someone who has committed a crime when the info is there to figure out who did it is ridiculous. With your thinking some smart attorney will get some rapist off for a more serious crime since the DNA kit will only be used for a rape case. There for the perpetrator can possibly use that to protect themselves since only the dna can be used for rape cases. Society is getting worse crime is on the rise and all that happens with these laws is it ties law enforcements hands to slow it down and arrest those that are committing crimes. I doubt there would be any huge amount of victims of rape that would not have the test done if this isn’t passed unless they have a crime themselves to hide.
JWB: I would recommend in response to “Sick of It” you go for the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment as in the guarantee that no person shall be denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons in similar situations with respect to their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. The condition of searching databases to look for crimes the victim committed may eliminate their protection under the law because of circumstances having nothing to do with their victimization. I have other ideas also if you want to kick them around. Let me know.
The inmates are running the asylum- and the democrats in this state elected them.
I believe law enforcement has used the Ancestry DNA site to solve cases in the past. Is this going to continue ?
Participants of ancestry databases are required to accept an acknowledgement that their genetic information may be used by law enforcement for criminal investigations.
All those ancestry DNA companies provide their DNA databases to law enforcement. They also sell the raw DNA data to China for use in precision medicine. Imagine bioweapons that only target individuals with certain genetic characteristics.
The reason for the law is so woman will not hesitate to have a rape kit used on them. On the other hand what are they afraid of unless they are a criminal. Most all of us have fingerprints on record. Fingerprints DNA what’s the difference.
When I first heard about using the DNA, my thought was smart detective work. A criminal may be a victim as some point, but that shouldn’t mean LE can’t use any means to solve a crime.
Would each of you who is in favor of this use of DNA consent to sending a sample of your own DNA to our law enforcement agencies?
If you would not be willing to send your DNA in to be used as evidence against any future crime you may commit then why do you think it is fair to apply this standard to rape victims?
Normally people on this site profess a mistrust of our government so I would be surprised to learn you are all willing to submit a swab.
I would think anyone who submitted a Covid test now has DNA in some federal or state database. I worked for a brokerage firm, so my fingerprints are on record. No issues. Don’t plan on breaking the law.
I have nothing to hide.
I will submit my DNA sample. I have already provided my fingerprints to the schools because I volunteer and fed/local LE agencies as I work with them in several capacities.
This is a minor skirmish on the inevitable path to governments having databases with not just your DNA, but all your spending patterns, your work and social history, friends, past travel and current location, political and religious beliefs, and so on. Much of this exists already but is fragmented. Freedom and any right to anonymity is dying the death of a thousand cuts as private industry in search of profit and government agencies like the NSA create their relational databases. In one or two decades they will know where you are going next weekend and the best targeted media presentation for you to support their pet issue. The current younger generation is just fine with that.
Historically CA has kept it’s citizens safe thru housing it’s educational failures, (dropouts) with no job skills, no work ethic and zero empathy for their fellow man in state Prisons after they’d learned from the streets skills to survive by being predacious upon society.
Also keep in mind repeated conditioning by politicians and schools to view themselves as victims and therefore entitled. Also tends to diminish empathy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT2v64Ykxc0
Watch this twice, then think about it.
Politicians will use any opportunity to grandstand to get their name in the news and get free TV face time, especially in an election year.
I bought a rape kit once…. it had fuzzy handcuffs, a velvet blindfold and one of those rubber ball thingies with a strap.
The label said “For consenting adults only!” and the handcuffs didn’t really lock….. I gave it away as a wedding present.