Q&A
Debate on ethics and legality of 'abandoned' DNA collection
1:59:38
ยท
3 min
Council Member Diana I. Ayala and Deputy Commissioner Michael Gerber engage in a debate about the ethics and legality of collecting DNA from items left behind by individuals, particularly those who may not be suspects in a crime. Gerber defends the practice as legally permissible, while Ayala expresses concerns about transparency and potential misuse.
- Ayala questions whether DNA collection without explicit consent is truly 'abandonment'
- Gerber argues that abandonment can occur without knowledge and is legally permissible
- The council member suggests that obtaining a warrant would be a more appropriate approach
- Gerber explains that DNA evidence can be crucial in both proving guilt and establishing innocence
Diana I. Ayala
1:59:38
What is it really abandonment if I don't know that I'm abandoning it and you're gonna collect it for DNA?
1:59:43
I mean, like, is there do you disclose that information to folks?
Michael Gerber
1:59:46
No.
1:59:47
And I I think the idea of abandonment I think you you can abandon something without knowing you're abandoning it.
1:59:52
Sure.
1:59:52
You person the person who unintentionally Recommend to me.
1:59:55
The person who unintentionally leaves evidence behind at a crime scene, for example.
2:00:00
Right?
Diana I. Ayala
2:00:00
That's fair game.
Michael Gerber
2:00:01
That's fair game.
Diana I. Ayala
2:00:02
Yes.
Michael Gerber
2:00:03
Right.
2:00:04
Someone does that in the precinct, legal legally, that's fair game too.
Diana I. Ayala
2:00:11
Well, I I don't think so because if I'm hanging out with, let's say Natasha here, and Natasha commits a crime and now I'm brought in for interrogation, and I happen to have a cup of coffee and I leave my cup of coffee there.
2:00:25
I I didn't commit a crime.
2:00:28
You don't have any evidence that I committed a crime because otherwise you would have arrested me.
2:00:32
Why would I not know that you would be collecting my DNA?
2:00:37
Why would my DNA be in any type of database?
Michael Gerber
2:00:39
Well, wanna I wanna be clear.
2:00:41
The the fact I mean, the the the scenario you're describing where someone is coming in, they're just, they're, you know, you just happen to be at that place, you're a witness or maybe, the idea that we're just surreptitiously taking your DNA, that's not my understanding of what happens at all.
Talia Kamran
2:00:55
Okay, so that's what I
Michael Gerber
2:00:56
wanted to But what about a different scenario in which you're a suspect, You're not a witness to the crime.
2:01:02
You're a suspect to the crime.
2:01:03
You've come in to talk to the NYPD, you're talking to us.
2:01:09
You then leave your DNA behind in, you know, something you ate or you drank, whatever.
2:01:15
In that scenario, I I understand the policy considerations that you're talking about, I get it, I do, but just as as a legal matter,
Diana I. Ayala
2:01:24
right I don't have a problem with you collecting the DNA.
2:01:27
It's the way that you collect the DNA that I have the problem with.
2:01:30
Because if the person is suspect in a crime, you have every right to, you know, to investigate and do what you have to do, but why couldn't you get a warrant, you know, get a court permission to obtain the DNA sample, why miss you know, because to me it's very misleading, and it it almost seems like entrapment.
2:01:53
And god knows how many people are on that database that have committed no crime or haven't been found guilty of committing any crime.
Michael Gerber
2:02:00
As a legal matter, you know, I don't think it's it's not entrapment.
2:02:04
I think certainly, look, there are situations where we go get court orders for DNA.
2:02:08
Yes.
2:02:09
There also are situations where we could be investigating an incredibly serious crime.
2:02:14
We don't yet have enough to get a to get a warrant.
2:02:18
Right?
2:02:18
But we have an opportunity because someone in whatever context left DNA behind.
2:02:23
And that may be that may be the linchpin in being able to charge that person or exonerate that person.
2:02:31
Right?
2:02:32
It cuts both ways.
2:02:33
Right?
2:02:33
The the DNA may be incredibly powerful proof that someone is guilty.
2:02:37
It also may be incredibly powerful proof that someone is innocent.
2:02:40
And we have examples of both of those, I think.
2:02:43
So I understand what you're saying, of course, and I understand kind of the sort of policy questions.
2:02:49
I do think what I'm describing is legally permissible and appropriate.