California Violates DNA Privacy to Catch a Serial Killer

Last week, it was reported that a Los Angeles serial killer — with the somewhat off-kilter nom de guerre 'Grim Sleeper' — was finally caught, after 25 years. The accused, Lonnie D. Franklin, was charged with 10 counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. If, in fact, Franklin is the killer, his arrest marks a major turn of events in a case that befuddled the LAPD for more than two decades.

Almost as notable as his arrest was the way it came about. Franklin's arrest was the first to be made by using a controversial DNA testing method called familial searching, which allows police departments to test crime scene DNA against samples in their databases and use 'near matches' as evidence in investigations. In this case, the police did not have Franklin's DNA, they had his son's. When his son's sample came up as a near match, the police began following Franklin. They eventually snatched a sample of his DNA from discarded trash and arrested him.

Familial searching is only allowed in two states, California and Colorado, and only in cases where every other means of investigation has been tried. The practice is so heavily restricted for good reason: Searching for near-matches means that the privacy of every person related by blood to someone who's given a DNA sample to the police is being infringed upon.

Based upon early news reports, Franklin seemed like the perfect example of why the practice might be necessary, even if repugnant. The New York Times had it that Franklin “worked as a mechanic for the city’s Department of Transportation,” and that he was known for being gracious to his neighbors. No mention was made of any criminal record, and it appeared that without familial testing, Franklin might never have been caught.

But over the last couple days, a clearer picture of the man has been presented by the press. It turns out Franklin was actually a “backyard mechanic” who has been “arrested at least 15 times for car theft, burglary, receiving stolen property, assaults, firearms possession and other crimes.” All of which casts some serious doubt on the claim that there was no way to catch him other than familial DNA searching. I mean, if you're looking for someone who randomly shoots people, you might want to check out the marginally employed guy who can't seem to stay away from illegal guns and stolen cars — and lives in the same neighborhood where the killings are taking place.

It's enough to make the cynical among us wonder whether the case would have been solved much sooner if the victims weren't living in East Los Angeles.

The thing to watch now will be the legal ramifications of Franklin's arrest. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is due to hear a case being brought against California's DNA collection law by the ACLU of Northern California tomorrow — only days after the sensational arrest. Some out there (I count myself among them) were holding out hope that the Ninth Circuit would make the right decision, and strike California's law (if any court would, it would be the Ninth Circuit).

But now I fear Franklin's arrest makes such a move a less likely. I know, I know, the courts are not supposed to be swayed by such events like Franklin's arrest, but let's be real here: judges are human. Of course they are.

Photo Credit: Laura Padgett