That's were a verifiable chain of custody is an imperative for law enforcement. Any break in the chain should preclude the use of the tainted evidence at trial.TrueFlog wrote:Y'all realize this is really a moot point now, right? Thanks to Obamacare, the feds will have your DNA next time you have blood drawn for a routine cholesterol exam.
Aside from that, I'm on the fence with this ruling. In many ways, a DNA sample is not that much different from fingerprints. It's very different from drawing blood given that a swab is much less invasive and carries much less risk of cross-infection, pain, etc. What I find problematic about collecting DNA is that it's much more than just a uniquie identifier. You can't measure someone's genes from a fingerprint. A DNA sample contains vast amounts of private data that I don't want to give away. Also, fingerprinting is much more transparent since the entire process is conducted right in front of you. With a DNA swab, they have to send the sample off to a lab where they do who-knows-what with it and may potentially mix it up with someone else's sample.
As Houston PD found out:
http://hpdlabinvestigation.org/reports/ ... ations.pdf
Record keeping at outside labs has to be just as meticulous, or again, the evidence would be tainted.