Does refusing to give DNA indicate guilt?

juniper said:

Over and over, in books and tv and movies, someone brought in for questioning re: a crime refuses to give a DNA sample, and that person immediately rises to the top of the list of suspects.

The cops or DA will say, "Shows he's the one. Only guilty people refuse to give DNA."

Is that true in real life? I'm asking here because I think mystery / crime writers probably think about and research things like this more than the average bear. *

I'm rather more concerned about privacy than a lot of folks, and if I were brought in for questioning and asked for DNA, I'd refuse in every case without a warrant.

Although a Google search has revealed that a warrant may not be necessary, according to US Supreme Court:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/

So then my question is, what happens to the DNA sample after they test it and find that mine doesn't match the crime scene evidence? Is it kept for comparison against future cases? Or is it destroyed?

And - for the borderline paranoids - can I trust the state / feds to REALLY destroy it, if that's what they say they're going to do?

>>>>>
* You might not be old enough to get this Yogi Bear reference.

Click to expand...

Of course it's not true. Which isn't to say it's not something cops may think, and say even if they don't think it. There are people who are guilty who won't give DNA or take a breathalyzer. There are people who are just made deeply anxious by the whole thing and start running false positive scenarios in their heads, who are not guilty but refuse things like both. There are people with concerns about privacy who would refuse; there are people who would refuse on principle.

Same as cops coming to ask you questions or want you to come answer some. There are people who, for the reasons above that don't include being guilty, will not cooperate. Cops will immediately try 'if you don't have anything to hide, why don't you want to...' because a. it often works, b. it's in the backs of their minds. However, guilty people not infrequently do cooperate with stuff like that, also for a variety of reasons, which cops know.

I recently heard a report on NPR about 'border' checks. This is apparently common in southern states that border Mexico, and as I've not been near the Mexican border, I'd never seen it and also hadn't heard of it. Border Patrol officers set up checkpoints, hundreds of miles from the border, on highways, and stop cars and ask if the people inside are citizens and whatnot. It's meant to catch illegal immigrants.

The reporter lived in a state where this was common and said she would just roll down her window and comply, popping the trunk and answering questions. I was listening to this, and wondering why the hell she did.

She then found that other people do not. The legitimacy of the stops is questionable at best, and lots of people simply refuse to comply; they question the patrol as to where the border they're supposedly patrolling is, why they have the right to ask the questions, and refuse to answer or allow a search. Sometimes the patrol people threaten warrants and other things; the refusers tend to be all, 'okie doke; I'll sit right here and wait.' In apparently every instance, the border patrol caves and waves the people on. There are apparently tons of videos of this on youtube.

The idea that non-cooperation is suspect is long-standing, and exacerbated, I think, by the whole Patriot Act thing, but it's still bogus and most people in law enforcement know that, even if there's a twitch to the, 'if you don't have anything to hide...' default.

Same as you don't have to testify in your own defense. It still seems suspicious to some people.

What happens to a sample depends on who/what agency is taking it for what reason. Different states/departments/agencies/etc., have different rules.

As to whether you should trust them... I wouldn't?

juniper said:

Yeah, that's really my question. I was unclear in my post. Not, "Am I guilty if" but "Do they think I'm guilty if" ...

Do most / many law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys believe DNA swab refusal indicates guilt? Or is that just something in fiction?

How about not letting a police officer into my house when he appears at my door? He was looking for someone who'd lived in my house several years before - the guy who sold the house to us. He and his partner rang the bell and I answered, then stepped outside to talk to them, closing the door behind me. Did that make them think I had something amiss going on inside? Smoking dope, making porn videos, whatever.

I shut the door to keep the dogs inside. I didn't invite them in because, well, I'm overly cautious and I watch a lot of crime shows. I didn't have anything nefarious going on, didn't have anything laying out to cause a problem, but still - just didn't want their (in my mind) suspicious, searching eyes looking around.

Click to expand...

I think I was unclear, heh.

Anyone who's been a cop for more than like 12 hours is suspicious in general.

I don't think every cop or DA thinks refusal = guilty, no. I think there may be a twitch to it, because it's so often said, but as I said, they know people who ARE guilty are sometimes quite cooperative.

Good cops and other people in the system, while suspicious by nature, won't actually think someone is guilty for refusing, in general, no.

Those cops may have thought you were smoking pot, or were just messy and embarassed, or were a lawyer who knew not to let cops you didn't call into the house, or were keeping people chained in the basement but, you know, who can be arsed? If you weren't acting hinky, they probably thought you thought the house was a mess, or they heard the dogs, or you were smoking pot, or didn't want a kid to see cops in the house, not likely something nefarious, if they pondered at all.

I'll give you my opinion, as a prosecuting attorney. It's going to depend on the reason you're being asked for the DNA sample. If there's other evidence of your guilt and you refuse, I'm going to up the suspicion. But if you're one of twenty being asked to rule you out, I'm more likely to put it down to privacy.

Same for not letting a cop into your house - if the cop's been called because of a disturbance, smell of weed etc, then not letting him in indicates you have something to hide. Otherwise, I don't think so.

Maryn said:

Thanks, Mark. Mr. Maryn and I are both privacy freaks of the highest order. I'd probably refuse to give DNA evidence for that reason alone--and there's nothing wrong with that.

Maryn, hoping you don't have other evidence

Click to expand...

Absolutely, I think there are a lot of innocent people who would refuse, and I might well be one of them.

And don't worry, I know you're not completely innocent...

Of course it raises suspicions, just like leading the fifth amendment does, or refusing to take a lie detector test does. This is human nature, pure and simple. But raised suspicions or not, you still need evidence.

Privacy? Yes, some do feel that way, but innocent people are more likely to give DNA because being part of a murder investigation usually outweighs their sense of privacy. A guilty person is certain to refuse. And you don't think it raises suspicion? Yeah, right. The guilty person will be in the group that refuses, so you start whittling the group down to size any way you can.

But anyone who says the police don't have some very sneaky, but perfectly legal, ways of getting DNA is fibbing to you.

I've interviewed our local prosecutor, and members of the homicide squad, many times, and some of the tales they tell make for great fiction.

juniper said:

Although a Google search has revealed that a warrant may not be necessary, according to US Supreme Court:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/

So then my question is, what happens to the DNA sample after they test it and find that mine doesn't match the crime scene evidence? Is it kept for comparison . .

Click to expand...

Good discussion. Keep in mind the Supreme Court decision applied to people already arrested for probable cause, not just anyone being questioned. I don't think DNA can otherwise be taken without your permission or a warrant.

As I recall, the Court's thinking was DNA allows positive ID of arrestees who might not give police accurate ID info, especially if there are outstanding warrants, etc. But in practice, many police depts used the DNA to run "cold case" hits, not simply for ID purposes. I believe the Court "punted" on that issue, but I don't recall for certain.

You'll generally be on sound ground if you keep a few things in mind.

Police officers are only human. Refusal to cooperate, not withstanding any sort of reasonable rationalization, will always generate some degree of suspicion.

As for DNA... Samples taken pursuant to court order (warrant) are typically kept (more likely the digital analysis thereof) unless ordered otherwise by the court.

Voluntary samples (no court order/warrant) may or may not be kept dependent upon the incidental circumstances, statutory requirements, and applicable rules/regs/policies of the investigating agencies.

Some entities now require submission of DNA samples (think DOD, employers, insurance interests, etc.).

If you keep your tale in the "voluntary sample" realm, you'll have far more leeway and discretion in developing your plot. Just keep it plausible under the circumstances.

If I haven't done anything wrong and the police ask for DNA, or to search my house, car, pockets, or even the exhaust pipe on my car, with out a warrant, they get a "no," and I don't care if it makes them suspicious or not. They have exactly zero business going on a fishing expedition in my house, car, or any other place that's mine. There are so many laws we are all probably breaking two or three every day and don't even know it. They show up with a warrant, I'm going to cooperate fully.

No warrant, the answer is no. Period.

My father, grandfather, and great grandfather were lawyers. I started out with huge respect for and faith in the US system of law and justice. Alas, that's pretty much gone.

At this point I'm convinced Department Of Justice is a misnomer. Over the course of my lifetime it's transitioned from the Department Of Justice to become the Department Of Law and then over the last 6 years to the Department of Ideology. The difference is profound.

Fitch

I distinguish between what I would like to see as a general principle or code of conduct in society and what I would do personally about this issue. As a general principle, I think people's privacy should be respected, and refusal to give DNA or to enter a house should itself never be officially required without due cause, and if someone refuses to cooperate without a specific search warrant, such refusal should explicitly not be allowed to be taken as a cause for suspicion or further investigation. But, speaking personally, if police asked for my DNA, I would have no problem providing it. As an author, I'm accustomed to having my name out and about, so who cares about my DNA.

recently read where at trial, a pleading of the fifth amendment, was used against them