UC Irvine civil rights clinic sues OC district legal professional over unregulated DNA database – Orange County Register

A civil rights clinic at UC Irvine Law School is filing an injunction to prevent Orange County prosecutors from forcing low-ranking defendants to lose their DNA in a unique local database.

A lawsuit filed this week against District Attorney Todd Spitzer alleges that collecting DNA from criminal offenders is illegal and that its US $ 110 collection fee affects disproportionately poor people, among others.

“The prosecution created a secret system of genetic surveillance that was never approved by state law,” said William C. Thompson of the UCI School of Social Ecology, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “They sold this system to the county regulator, promising it would solve a lot of crimes, but that promise was not kept.

“Instead, we have seen a distortion of the judicial system, where basic fairness and common sense have been sacrificed to force more and more people to give up their constitutional rights in order to feed an unaccountable, ineffective bureaucracy,” Thompson continued. “It is time to end this wasteful policy failure.”

Program not mandatory

Spitzer replied that Orange County’s collection program did indeed help solve crimes, was not in any way compulsive, and had multiple levels of security.

“This program is helping to prevent mass incarceration in Orange County while making a significant contribution to ending future crimes. … The OCDA DNA program protects the public, prevents additional victimization, and offers individuals a way out of the criminal justice system, “said Spitzer, referring to a 2017 study that found the relapse in the year after An individual’s filing has reduced his or her DNA by 43%.

“The professors’ plaintiffs should know better, and I had much higher expectations of the University of California at Irvine and its professors that their legal research would have been thorough and accurate,” he said.

182,000 DNA samples

Spitzer’s office privately owns the DNA of more than 182,000 people, with no control or external control, the lawsuit alleges. In terms of fighting crime, the database was ineffective. According to legal proceedings, fewer than 1% of the samples provided matches in 2018. However, in a 2019 report, prosecutors added 8,077 “investigative leads” to the database for local police.

The local DNA database was founded in 2007 by former District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and was heavily criticized by Spitzer during his campaign for the office in 2018. However, after his election, Spitzer decided to keep the tax-funded program after learning of its potential as a crime-solving tool.

Under state and federal law, DNA can be collected and stored in state and national databases for criminal offenses and some crimes such as arson and some sex crimes. Orange County collects DNA for offenses such as: B. Driving under the influence, then offers to drop or drastically reduce charges in order to get the defendant’s permission to keep the DNA on file. The practice has become known in the courthouse as “spitting and acquittal”.

Insufficient controls?

The local DNA is kept privately by the public prosecutor’s office, provided that petty criminals can later commit crimes. The lawsuit states that the genetic evidence is being held indefinitely and without adequate control over its use and dissemination.

Often times, the defendants cannot speak to lawyers before relinquishing their right to withhold their DNA, the lawsuit states. Filing DNA is often part of a package deal, and the defendant doesn’t know to just refuse that part of the agreement, the lawsuit added.

Spitzer and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit disagree on whether Orange County’s DNA determination was approved by the state criminal code and whether it violates both state and US constitutions.