Letters: Collecting DNA can solve crimes

Re “Too far on DNA searches,” Editorial, Dec. 15

I emphatically agree that there are genuine differences between the routine taking of DNA samples of those arrested, and fingerprinting and taking mug shots of them. The difference is that DNA tests are more reliable.

Does The Times believe that fingerprints and photographs of those only accused of crimes should be made unavailable to investigators?

Your editorial decries “the gathering and storage of personal data of people who have not been convicted of crimes in order to link them to unrelated crimes.” If DNA proves the individual committed a crime, then it is not “unrelated.”

Using a reliable tool to exonerate as well as to incriminate makes more sense than using fingerprints and mug shots to achieve the same ends.

Janet Weaver

Huntington Beach

The use of information (lawfully gathered, as a reliable means of identification) should not be called an unlawful search. Collecting information is essential, and using that information is not a search.

Can a cigarette discarded by a suspect be collected to check for a fingerprint? Is probable cause necessary, or is lawful collection sufficient? Does it matter that the only match is to prints collected at an unrelated crime scene?

DNA analysis is not limited to identifying the donor as a criminal suspect. It may identify relatives who should be a suspect or serve to clear someone; both may focus an investigation.

Collecting and using DNA is not unreasonable. Limits on collection (and on storage and use when unlawfully collected) is enough if access and use is appropriately limited and the donor has a right to mount a timely challenge to violations.

John C. Nangle

Palm Springs

ALSO:

Letters: Park and ride

Letters: Making the bullet train fly

Letters: Single-payer beats Obamacare