A law enforcement tool used to crack old criminal cases is under attack at the federal court level, but Snohomish County prosecutors said use of a genetic database will continue, at least for now, in Washington state.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday shot down a 3-year-old law requiring federal prisoners and parolees to give blood samples for possible future DNA analysis.
A similar genetic database of convicted felons in Washington has been in use since 1990 and has been pivotal in resolving some high-profile cold cases that otherwise probably would not have been solved.
The 2-1 decision in San Francisco will have no immediate effect on Washington law, said Seth Fine, Snohomish County deputy prosecutor. The 9th Circuit Court decision is not binding on state courts.
The state Supreme Court in 1993 upheld the law, and that will stand unless the state high court reverses itself or the U.S. Supreme Court bans the database, Fine said.
"Ultimately, of course, it looks like the U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide this issue," Fine said.
The 9th Circuit decision said the databank is a violation of inmates’ Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches. The blood samples prisoners give constitute "searches with the objective of furthering law enforcement purposes," the court said.
Deputy prosecutor Paul Stern, who was appointed in 1989 by then-Gov. Booth Garner to a panel charged with setting up procedures for the databank, believes it is not a violation of inmate rights.
"The ability to clear old homicides, to remove murderers from the streets, seems to outweigh the incredibly minor invasion of privacy" of criminals, Stern said.
DNA was responsible for pointing the finger at James Lucius Stephens Jr. of Seattle, who is in prison now after Lynnwood police in 2000 used DNA to connect him to a 1976 rape and murder.
Lynnwood also nabbed Clifford Goodwin last year after a database connected him with a brutal rape in 1998.
Fine said criminals forfeit some rights to privacy when they are convicted, and there’s a good reason for it — to protect the public.
"I find it difficult to understand a court that places a higher weight on a convicted criminal not to have a finger pricked (for blood) than the general public to know who is responsible for serious crimes," Fine said.
Not only is the databank useful for solving crimes, it’s also a useful tool for exonerating people who otherwise might be convicted of a crime, Stern added.
Reporter Jim Haley: 425-339-3447 or haley@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
