San Francisco police sued for using DNA in rape kit to link victim to unrelated crime

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The San Francisco Police Department “weaponized” the DNA provided for a rape kit from a sexual assault victim when they used it to identify her as suspect in an unrelated burglary years later, according to court documents.

The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Police Department Monday in federal court in California’s Northern District. She said she provided her DNA to law enforcement in 2016 as part of its investigation into her sexual assault, but just more than five years later, they instead used it to charge her with retail theft, her lawyer, Adante Pointer, told the New York Times.

“The exchange is you’re going to use this DNA for a specific purpose, which is to prosecute the person who violated me,” Pointer said. “And instead, the police turned into the violators here.”

Chesa Boudin, the city district attorney, previously slammed the police practice and in February declined to prosecute the woman. Her case revealed several similar instances in which DNA provided by victims of rape and sexual assault were later used to link them to unrelated crimes.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/san-francisco-police-sued-for-using-dna-in-rape-kit-to-link-victim-to-unrelated-crime/ar-AA11MK0F

[DURHAM D]

1. Good use of DNA. nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. do what now

[Whiskeytide]

5. Nope. It discourages reporting sexual assault. n/t

[Karadeniz]

9. My reaction, too....

[canuckledragger]

7. ...If you're a women hating misogynist that is.

[DURHAM D]

8. Don't do the crime. This is easy.

jftr - I am a feminist.

[unblock]

12. It's far more problematic than that

DNA evidence has been glorified to be more accurate and meaningful than it actually is.

Generally all a match means is that some bodily substance that likely belonged to you or a near genetic relative was found around the crime scene.

It doesn't mean it was actually you, it doesn't mean you were ever there (just you dna somehow), it doesn't mean you were there at the time of the crime, and it doesn't mean you did the crime.

But a match can ruin your life anyway.

Especially knowing how pathetic the processing rate is for rape kits and how hard it is to get a conviction anyway, a rape victim might well figure that all she'd be accomplishing by giving dna would be to sign up for a possible false accusation at any time in the future.


Rape shouldn't exist, period. Not even if the victim is a criminal. There is zero justification for requiring a rape victim to waive their right not to testify or provide evidence against themselves in an unrelated crime in order to help the state get a rapist off the streets.

[crickets]

13. Well said. nt

[lostnfound]

15. What an absurd position. Rape crime "property crime"

Your logic would have women who had committed any crime (shoplifting is a property crime) in the PAST not come forward about a rape case that happens NOW. The consequence can be that a rapist goes on RAPING — OR KILLING — because a case that might get him off the street never gets prosecuted.

Often it’s a rape victim who managed to survive who eventually provides evidence that links the rapist to other cases of rape and murder.

[Whiskeytide]

16. It's really not easy. I get what you're saying, but ...

… your proposal means that anyone who has ever committed a crime would never report a rape and seek prosecution of the rapist. It would be open season for sexual abuse as long as you selected women who might have crossed the law in the past. You could assault them, and then casually mention that they’d better not report it lest the DA link their DNA to a past crime.

If the DA can prosecute the past crime based on other available evidence, then, sure, DDTCIYCDTT. But to re-victimize a rape victim using HIPAA protected medical data is barbaric when all she did was come forward to report a monster.

We should prioritize imprisoning the monster, not the woman who stole something from a retail establishment.

[Chautauquas]

10. +1

[exboyfil]

2. Like running warrants on witnesses

Counterproductive as hell.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

3. What if they used the sperm in a rape kit for a similar purpose?

Just a philosophical question to see how intellectually rigorous one cares to be.

[Mariana]

6. If the sperm or other DNA sample was given to the police voluntarily

with the understanding that it will be used to investigate and prosecute one particular crime (e.g. a rape), then that analogy would be valid. In that case, of course it should not be used for a similar purpose.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

11. Let me rephrase ... the context is a rape kit

submitted by a person who is alleging they were raped.

Should the DNA of the accused be fair game to use for whatever prosecution purposes the cops come up with at any time after the kit is submitted, or should it be protected until that DNA-provider is convicted of said sex offense before it becomes valid evidence for other possible crimes? Or protected from prosecution uses ... forever, either way?

I'm not necessarily taking a side, just saying ... interesting philosophical question.

[Torchlight]

14. A damned effective method to reduce an already low

percentage of sexual assault and rape victims from coming forward.




I was of the understanding that issues such as this have come before the bench before and were successfully argued (more often than not) as falling outside the scope of consent for a particular DNA sample. I may double-check that evening when I get home.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. They are using dna for retail theft?

What the fuck did she (allegedly) steal? The Hope Diamond?