Privacy Digest

WA Supreme Court upholds collection of DNA from convicts: "SEATTLE -- A law requiring the collection of DNA from felons is constitutional, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday, rejecting a challenge from convicts who expressed concerns about their privacy rights and what the DNA information might be used for.

'The State already collects from convicted persons identifying information such as photographs and fingerprints; a DNA sample is simply another piece of identifying information,' Justice Charles Johnson wrote in the lead opinion, joined by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justices Barbara Madsen and James Johnson.

Justices Tom Chambers, Susan Owens and Bobbe Bridge issued concurrences, while Richard Sanders and Mary Fairhurst wrote dissents.

The state maintains a database of DNA information in case it can help solve other crimes. Six felons, convicted of crimes ranging from second-degree murder to second-degree possession of stolen property, had challenged the law, enacted in 1989, and the court considered the matter in one consolidated case that was argued in May 2005.

'Any time you get a law that allows invasion of privacy or searches without particularized suspicion, that's a concern,' said Eric Broman, a lawyer for the convicts.

Broman noted that unlike fingerprints or photographs, DNA can be used to identify a convict's relatives - even if they've done nothing wrong.

'It's pretty Orwellian in its unintended consequences,' he said.

Two lower courts upheld the law. Johnson's lead opinion noted that convicts have a lesser expectation of privacy than the general population, as their identities and physical characteristics have already become part of the public record - as in police reports, for example.

In dissenting, Sanders wrote that a person who has lost privacy interests in his identity may still claim a right to privacy in his body, and that biological samples thus should not be taken without a warrant."

(Read Original Article - Via .)