DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is genetic material found in blood, hair, saliva, bone, tissue, and bodily fluids that identifies the specific person from whom it came, to the exclusion of all other persons on earth (except for identical twins, who share the same genetic code). DNA collection and analysis gives the criminal justice system a powerful tool for convicting the guilty and exonerating the innocent.
Only one-tenth of a single percent of DNA (about 3 million bases) differs from one person to the next. After extracting DNA from bodily materials, scientists record an individual’s variations at these bases to generate their DNA profile.
In criminal cases this generally involves obtaining samples from crime-scene evidence and a suspect; extracting the DNA; and analyzing the DNA to characterize the variations at a set of specific variable regions (markers). If the sample profiles don't match, the person did not contribute the DNA at the crime scene. If the patterns do match, the suspect may have contributed the evidence sample.
The United States Supreme Court has held that when the police make a valid arrest supported by probable cause, the accused's expectations of privacy are not violated by the minor intrusion of a brief swab inside of the accused’s mouth (cheeks) to extract a sample of DNA material. The Supreme Court reasoned that the context of arrest gives rise to significant state (government) interests in identifying the accused so that (1) the proper name can be attached to the charges and (2) the criminal justice system can make informed decisions concerning pretrial custody.
For these reasons, the Supreme Court concluded that DNA identification of persons arrested is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure. When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold the person for a serious criminal offense and bring the suspect to the police station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is like fingerprinting and photographing—a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958 (2013).
Approximately 30 states and the federal government have laws that authorize the collection and analysis of the DNA of persons arrested or charged with certain crimes—before such persons are convicted of any crimes. State laws allowing for the collection and analysis of DNA upon arrest are often based on the type of crime involved—with some states permitting it for all felonies; some states permitting it only for certain felonies; and some states permitting it for certain misdemeanors and felonies. And some states allow DNA collection and analysis of juveniles charged with qualifying criminal offenses.
These DNA collection and analysis laws are also known as DNA arrestee laws and are generally located in a state’s statutes.
In Rhode Island, DNA collection and analysis in the context of criminal justice is a tool used for identifying individuals involved in crimes. The process involves obtaining DNA samples from crime scenes and suspects, and then analyzing these samples to create DNA profiles. A match between a crime scene sample and a suspect's DNA can suggest involvement in the crime, while a non-match can exclude a suspect. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Maryland v. King, the collection of DNA from individuals arrested for serious offenses is considered a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, akin to fingerprinting and photographing during booking procedures. Rhode Island, along with approximately 30 other states and the federal government, has laws that permit the collection and analysis of DNA from persons arrested or charged with certain crimes, even before conviction. These laws vary by state, with some allowing DNA collection for all felonies, some for specific felonies, and others for certain misdemeanors and felonies. The state statutes also cover the collection and analysis of DNA from juveniles charged with qualifying offenses. It's important to note that the specifics of Rhode Island's DNA collection laws would be detailed in the state's statutes, which would outline the types of crimes that trigger DNA collection and the procedures for handling and analyzing DNA evidence.
