Loopholes, DNA Collection and Tech: Does Your Consent as a User of a Genealogy Website Override Another Person’s Fourth Amendment Right?
The user of the genealogy website uploads their DNA for the purposes of tracing their family history rather than catching criminals.
February 04, 2025 at 11:50 AM
13 minute read
By Jessy Leifer
In April 2018, a remarkable event occurred that forever impacted criminal investigations. The Golden State Killer was finally arrested. And, more interestingly, was the method law enforcement used to finally identify the man who murdered 13, raped 50, and terrorized a whole state for nearly three decades. For the first time, law enforcement uploaded a DNA sample recovered from the crime scenes to a public consumer genealogy website, tracing the DNA to the perpetrator through comparison with distant genetic relatives who uploaded their own DNA, not for the purposes of catching criminals, but for simply tracing their family lineage.
The Golden State Killer case was considered the first to use forensic genetic genealogy, a method that has since been used in some 545 cases as of Dec. 31, 2022. It has been used to close cold cases like the Golden State Killer, to rapidly solve current cases like identifying the murderer of four Idaho college students in November 2022, as well as to finally name unidentified remains. Some genetic genealogy sites like AncestryDNA and 23andMe prohibit law enforcement investigations using an ordinary user profile, while others like FamilyTreeDNA and GEDMatch are open about allowing law enforcement access to their databases, even without court approval or warrants. Parabon NanoLabs, one of the most notable companies that provides DNA services to law enforcement agencies, has made more than 265 positive identifications in criminal cases, while the DNA Doe Project, a California nonprofit volunteer organization, has identified more than 100 sets of remains.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAmazon's Audible Hit With Privacy Class Action Over Use of Tracking Pixels
When Inadvertent Disclosures Happen at a Law Firm, Who’s Responsible?
Trending Stories
- 1Unit Owners Sued Board For Failure To Maintain Adequate Fire Insurance: This Week In Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 2NY Judge Resigns After Avoiding Jury Duty by Telling Court He Couldn't Be Impartial
- 3'Serious Legal Errors'?: Rival League May Appeal Following Dismissal of Soccer Antitrust Case
- 4Longtime Purdue GC Accused of Drunken Driving Hires Big-Name Defense Attorney
- 5Eight Years On, A&O Shearman’s Fuse Legal Tech Incubator Is Still Evolving
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250