New York is the nation’s capital state for technology and finance, and leads in the expansion of the usage of DNA that has been collected in DNA databases to solve crimes in the name of criminal justice; however, this same application raises concerns about privacy infringements and toeing the line of the Fourth Amendment’s constitutional privacy rights for individuals. As such, even though this use is effective, the retention of DNA for the purpose of criminal law enforcement reveals an underlying tension between the pursuit of justice and the need for stronger legal safeguards on how much genetic data the government can retain, even from those who are innocent, especially as it disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, not just within New York, but in the nation generally.

According to the Legal Information Institute, although the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment exists to provide the people the fundamental right against unreasonable searches and seizures, unless probable cause is enough for a specific warrant to be given; the Fourth Amendment by itself is not a free-for-all pass for all searches and seizures but pointedly, those undertaken by the government and considered unreasonable by the law. Probable cause is defined simply as a made-up construct created by the judicial system aligning with whether the individual involved had reasonable belief that the law was being broken at the time they suspected.

Key cases that will be discussed within this paper include the landmark 2012 case in New York where DNA was collected after the interrogation of a 12-year-old boy from the straw in the cup of soda New York Police Department (NYPD) detectives had offered him. This case highlighted the underlying problems with the criminal justice system as the parents of the boy had appealed to have their child’s DNA removed from NYC’s DNA database but found that the process was sticky, taking over a year to be completed. There was also the Gilgo Beach serial killer, Rex Heumermann, who was caught after police detectives collected DNA off of discarded pizza crusts in the killer’s trash. Both cases caught media attention, albeit, the Suffolk County case caught more wind than the 12-year-old’s DNA collection as the nation was sitting at the edge of its seat for the next installment of the Gilgo Beach case’s investigation.

This article will address both the downsides and the potential upsides to genetic surveillance by the federal government of the United States. Section 1 is about New York, its long-lasting ties to the state DNA database, and how the NYPD have undertaken their hunt for DNA evidence. It touches upon the leisure of the Fourth Amendment and how lawsuits have exponentially increased with the introduction of the DNA database due to its roundabout collection methods. It recognized that DNA websites that openly extract willing participants’ DNA serve both the purpose of creating family trees for those who have long-forgotten family members and providing for law enforcement who grapple with finding decent leads. Section 2 addresses the importance of how law enforcement defines what is “voluntary” to them and how ordinary citizens see it as not “voluntary.” Section 3 delves into how the police force handles and takes care of their own concerning DNA collection. Section 4 closes with a different perspective to the entire article by introducing methods for a more futuristic and potentially, infinitely safer America by utilizing the same genetic surveillance we frown upon today. Intrinsically, I believe the injustice faced by people of color and the abuse of power by police in obtaining DNA samples was the tumor that must be excised in order to maintain stability. In successfully doing so, we can create a candid government that the public can trust to keep them safe from crime and harm.