 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Landry v. Attorney General4/13/1999
r for any other reason) will inevitably be challenged on the ground (among others) that the DNA sample was not properly obtained or that it had been contaminated with other human DNA, creating a possible misleading or false result. See Commonwealth v. Vao Sok, 425 Mass. 787, 794 n.11 (1997) (pointing out the possibility of contamination of a forensic DNA sample and further describing problems that might exist with certain types of DNA testing). Regulations governing the use of reasonable force by those assisting in the collection of DNA samples are neither mandated by the Act nor otherwise necessary to its implementation. The grant of a preliminary injunction would not be warranted on this ground.
5. The plaintiffs, and other interested parties who have filed briefs, have understandably raised questions concerning the possibility that those who have submitted DNA samples under the Act may suffer a violation of privacy, if DNA information about them is disclosed for a purpose other than identification. We briefly discuss some of these concerns.
The DNA analysis that the Act allows to be performed on the blood samples, and the limited distribution of the information, should eliminate fears about wrongful privacy disclosures that might otherwise arise. While technological advances have made it possible to discover from minute blood samples genetic and medical information of a most invasive and personal nature, the STR testing process, and the restricted purpose for which a blood sample obtained under the Act may be tested, provides safeguards against wrongful use of the resulting information. We are told that STR testing avoids the acquisition of general genetic information, and that STR loci are "particularly appropriate for forensic use," in part because they can be "noncoding regions and therefore can be expected to be selectively neutral." National Research Council, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence 117 (1996). Further, even if the loci tested could reveal genetic information, the Act confines the use of the samples to a DNA analysis which generates on "numerical identification information" (emphasis added). G. L. c. 22E, Sect. 1. In most cases, only the resulting "DNA record," which contains the numerical identification information derived from the samples by the analysis, may be distributed. See G. L. c. 22E, Sect. 10. In addition, the Act limits the purposes for which the DNA records may be distributed, and does not permit dissemination of the DNA samples themselves. The Act also imposes criminal sanctions on anyone who "purposely discloses" or "willfully obtains" DNA information without proper authorization. G. L. c. 22E, Sects. 12, 13. The plaintiffs assert that Sect. 10 (c)-(d) of the Act, which compels disclosure of the records to comply with Federal statutory or grant obligations, and allows disclosure of records for various scientific or humanitarian purposes, may somehow lead to leakage of complete genetic profiles. Their speculation that data may be used wrongfully is contrary to the language of the Act and concerns provisions that are not before us.
6. The preliminary injunction entered in the Superior Court is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|