Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
Q&A
Process of reviewing and removing DNA samples from the database
0:39:11
ยท
4 min
Deputy Commissioner Gerber explains the process for reviewing and potentially removing DNA samples from the database.
- Individuals can always seek a court order for removal
- NYPD has a separate continuous review process implemented several years ago
- Samples are reviewed after two years, with a larger look-back every four years
- The majority of samples in the local database are from individuals convicted of felonies or penal law misdemeanors
- A small number of samples remain for ongoing investigations or pending cases
- In rare cases, samples may be kept if a case was resolved without determining guilt or innocence
Yusef Salaam
0:39:11
So just so that I understand correctly as well, in terms of the length of time that the DNA samples are in the database, when the individual is exculpated, does that sample get immediately discarded?
0:39:27
I mean like
Michael Gerber
0:39:28
Right.
0:39:28
So there are two different things going on.
0:39:32
There's always the option for someone to go get a court order to be removed from database.
0:39:36
That always exists.
0:39:38
We also have on top of that a separate process we put in place several years ago, basically to be sort of continuously essentially reviewing what's in the database to see whether there should be removals.
0:39:53
Right?
0:39:54
So the way it works is we first, in 2020, did a review of everything in the database.
0:40:03
Then with for every sample after that, after two years, we review it.
0:40:10
Right?
0:40:10
So there's a sort of a look back in 2020, then every sample that comes in every two years.
0:40:16
And then in 2024, we did another look back for all samples that had been there more than four years.
0:40:24
A long way of saying that we are sort of continually there's a continual review process that is going on both on a one off basis after a sample has been there two years and every four years a larger look back.
0:40:37
And then what what are we looking for?
0:40:39
So the vast majority, the overwhelming majority of samples in the local database are of individuals who have been convicted of a felony or penal law misdemeanor.
0:40:57
And in that instance, they they are they otherwise already have a sample in the state database as a matter of state law.
0:41:04
Right?
0:41:04
So so there and that's the vast majority of of the samples that are in the local database.
0:41:10
They're actually also in the state database.
0:41:12
They're already there.
0:41:14
We just have it in a local database because that search will be quicker.
0:41:18
Then you have a much smaller number of individuals where basically the investigation is ongoing or the case is pending.
0:41:26
Right?
0:41:26
So there are situations where the case hasn't been resolved.
0:41:29
Either the investigation is still happening as we speak or someone has been charged but the case is pending.
0:41:35
Right?
0:41:35
So those samples will be there.
0:41:37
And then there is a very small number of situations, and this is always in conferral with the DA's office, where the case has been resolved, the person was not convicted, but the resolution of the case happened independent of a determination of guilt or innocence.
0:41:54
So for example, for example, if there was a concern about someone threatening a witness and the witness refused to cooperate going forward.
0:42:04
Situations in which, yes, the case was disposed of, but there really was no determination of guilt or innocence.
0:42:10
That exception does exist.
0:42:11
There are some samples like that in the database.
0:42:14
It is an extremely, extremely, extremely small percentage of the samples in the local database.
Yusef Salaam
0:42:21
And, you know, just for further clarity, I think the public would assume that in the example that was given with regards to a gun, you know, if somebody touches something, of course, if their handprint is on there, that's clear present indication that that individual touched that gun.
0:42:43
If there's gun residue on their hand after their hands are tested and so forth and so on.
0:42:48
But, if we, so to speak, just have a dragnet of grabbing individuals and maybe only one of them actually has handprints on that gun.
0:43:00
I would think that the public would say that it's a long process for two years to go by for the review of all of those individuals, if if I'm understanding correctly.
Michael Gerber
0:43:10
Right.
0:43:10
But I guess what I would say, Jerusalem, is that we're not talking about a dragnet here at all.
0:43:14
I mean, we're talking about abandonment samples last year, a 74.
0:43:19
That's for the whole city for the for the for the whole year.
0:43:24
I mean, every single one of those is a person.
0:43:26
I I appreciate the significance and and the issues that you're raising, but that is a remarkably extraordinarily small number for New York City over the course of a year.
0:43:38
So I think to speak in terms of a dragnet, I don't think that's accurate at all.
0:43:43
I don't think it's a dragnet at all.
0:43:44
It is actually incredibly targeted.
0:43:46
We have policies in place.
0:43:48
The data supports this.
0:43:49
It actually, particularly when it comes to juveniles, because of the sensitivities, it is actually an incredibly narrow process and an incredibly small number.