Over the past ten years, law enforcement officials in Florida, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and North Carolina have increasingly been collecting DNA from people during “routine” stops by asking them to volunteer their DNA. While there are clear legal precedents concerning collecting criminal defendants’ DNA, ProPublica notesthat “the notion of collecting DNA consensually is still so new that the ground rules remain uncertain. Who can give such consent and what must they be told about what they’re consenting to? Who decides how long to keep these samples and what can be done with them?”

These “voluntary” samples have helped police expand local law enforcement DNA databases and are even added to private DNA databases—which, unlike federal or state databases, are not subject to regulation or oversight. While larger cities can afford to run public forensic laboratories, smaller cities have partnered with private DNA labs that “offer such fast, cheap testing that police can afford to amass DNA even to investigate minor crimes, from burglary to vandalism.” One lab director added that, “The lower standards for DNA profiles included in private databases could lead to meaningless or coincidental matches…No one knows what the rules are about what they’re going to upload into these private DNA databases or not. Mixtures, partials—what’s their criteria? It varies.”

FBI, DOJ and NDAA issue statements against PCAST report declaring they will not adopt any of the report’s forensic science reform recommendations (The Intercept)

After the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released their report on forensic science reforms in criminal courts last month, both the FBI and DOJ have issued statements blasting the report’s findings and refusing to adopt the committee’s recommendations. The FBI issued a press release on September 20th that called the PCAST report’s criteria “subjectively derived and [therefore] inconsistent and unreliable,” while in a statement given to the Wall Street Journal, Attorney General Loretta Lynch remarked, “We remain confident that, when used properly, forensic science evidence helps juries identify the guilty and clear the innocent, and the department believes that the current legal standards regarding the admissibility of forensic evidence are based on sound science and sound legal reasoning. While we appreciate their contribution to the field of scientific inquiry, the department will not be adopting the recommendations related to the admissibility of forensic science evidence.”

The National District Attorney Association (NDAA) has also released a very critical letter against the report calling the reform recommendations “scientifically irresponsible,” which, according to Salon, has “lent credence to a longstanding criticism that American prosecutors are more concerned with winning than in establishing a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Former Orange County Senior Forensic Scientist Mary Hong accused of “doctoring key DNA analysis by giving conflicting testimony that aided prosecutors win two homicide trials” (OC Weekly)

STRmix DNA analysis software under intense scrutiny after being used in high profile U.S. cases, including the Oral Nicholas Hillary trial, where the DNA evidence was precluded from trial after not being properly validated (Stuff.co)

Hundreds of Massachusetts criminal cases could be thrown out after 8 guns, $70,000 in cash, and large quantities of drugs were found missing from a police evidence room. Officials discovered the missing evidence after an audit was ordered last spring and the officer in charge committed suicide shortly before the review was to begin. State judges have already dismissed five drug cases at prosecutors’ requests citing mishandled evidence (Boston Globe)
Related: Op-Ed: Time to get serious about protecting evidence