Civil liberties organizations have issued an urgent warning regarding a tactic allegedly employed by New York City police to collect DNA without warrants or explicit consent. The practice, detailed in a federal court battle, involves officers purportedly encouraging individuals in interview rooms to consume drinks or offer them items like cigarettes, then retrieving the discarded materials for DNA analysis.
The core of the legal challenge is a lawsuit, Leslie v. City of New York, brought by The Legal Aid Society, which argues that the creation and maintenance of the city's "Suspect Index" database are unlawful. This database reportedly contains over 34,000 DNA profiles, including those of individuals who were never charged, were acquitted, or were ruled out as suspects.
Plaintiffs contend that this method of DNA collection constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Unlike DNA collection during routine booking procedures following an arrest, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in cases like Maryland v. King, this tactic allegedly relies on deception. According to court filings, plaintiff Shakira Leslie claims detectives obtained her DNA from a cup after she was held for several hours and repeatedly offered a drink. She alleges she was not allowed to keep the cup, and police subsequently retrieved it to extract her genetic material.
Leslie's supporters argue that she did not voluntarily abandon the cup, as the city has claimed, because it was provided as part of a ruse and she was under restraint. They assert that collecting the cup, analyzing its contents, and searching the resulting DNA profile are distinct actions that each require legal justification, such as a warrant.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the Cato Institute are supporting the appeal, arguing that extracting and storing DNA without a warrant infringes upon privacy rights. "The government cannot treat our DNA like it treats our garbage, and seize, search, and store it without a warrant," stated Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.
Database Violates State Law
Beyond the constitutional arguments, the lawsuit also claims the Suspect Index violates New York State law. New York's official DNA databank has specific regulations regarding who can be included, how genetic information can be used, and when records must be expunged, generally requiring a conviction for a qualifying crime. Challengers argue that the city's separate database, maintained by the Office of Chief Medical Examiner, operates outside these legal parameters and includes individuals who were merely questioned or never convicted.
Court filings cite instances where samples were allegedly taken from minors and individuals brought in solely for questioning. One example mentioned involves detectives reportedly giving a 12-year-old boy a soda and using his DNA from the discarded container to add his profile to the database. Groups also claim the collection methods have disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic New Yorkers.
The NYPD, through a spokesman, has previously stated that DNA collection is considered a best practice for law enforcement. The NYC Law Department and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner declined to comment on the current lawsuit.
A federal district court had previously ruled against Leslie, accepting the city's argument that she had abandoned any privacy interest in the DNA left on the cup. However, her supporters are urging the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse this decision, emphasizing the fundamental difference between a disclosed, regulated booking procedure and the alleged secret ruse used in Leslie's case. The Second Circuit has not yet issued a ruling on the matter.