DNA bill targets relatives

January 4, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Relatives of someone who commits a crime may find themselves under investigation under a proposed bill to regarding DNA testing.

Senate Bill 89 would amend Chapter 6 of Indiana Code 10-13 to add section 13.5, which authorizes the superintendent of a police department to investigate one or more people genetically related to an accused criminal whose DNA records are already in the state’s DNA database. The police would be allowed to start this investigation after the DNA sample of the accused doesn’t establish an exact match between the sample and the DNA profile of the alleged criminal, and the DNA sample indicates it closely matches the DNA profile of the person to suggest the DNA could actually come from a relative of the accused.

The bill is kind of vague in that it doesn’t define “investigation” or say whether the relative will have to give DNA solely based on this linkage to the relative already in the DNA database.

Obviously, I’m not a scientist and “closely matches” isn’t defined in the bill, but if you are related to someone, won’t you have very similar DNA? I imagine siblings’ DNA is more similar than those of second cousins, but what’s the line between “closely matching” and just ”kind of” matching?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT