DNA Forensics:

Expanding Uses 

and Information 

Sharing

September 2006

W. Mark Dale

Owen Greenspan

Donald Orokos

SEARCH

The National Consortium for Justice

Information and Statistics
This page left intentionally blank
,

SEARCH

The National Consortium for Justice

Information and Statistics

7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145

Sacramento, California 95831

Phone: (916) 392-2550

Fax: (916) 392-8440 

www.search.org

DNA Forensics:

Expanding Uses 

and Information 

Sharing

September 2006

W. Mark Dale

Owen Greenspan

Donald Orokos
U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jeffrey L. Sedgwick, Director

Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Francis X. Aumand III, Chairman, and Ronald P. Hawley, Executive Director. 

Owen M. Greenspan, Director, Law and Policy, of SEARCH, project director and author, W. Mark Dale, 

Director of the Northeast Regional Forensics Institute (NERFI) at the University at Albany, State University of New York and Donald D. Orokos, Instructor in Biology and Associate Director, Forensic Molecular Biology Program at the University at Albany, State University of New York, authors. Dr. Gerard F. 

Ramker, Chief, National Criminal History Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal 

project monitor.

This report was produced as a product of a project funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), Office 

of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, under Cooperative Agreement No. 2006-BJ-CX-K013, 

awarded to SEARCH Group, Incorporated, 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 

95831. Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of BJS or the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Copyright © SEARCH Group, Incorporated, dba SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 2006.


Contents

Preface................................................................................................................................................ iii

Glossary.............................................................................................................................................. iv

Overview ............................................................................................................................................1

DNA Collection Legislation..........................................................................................................2

DNA, Economics, and Public Safety...........................................................................................2

The Science and Evolving Technology of DNA.....................................................................3

Legal Strategies to Obtain DNA Samples...............................................................................7

CODIS: The Combined DNA Index System .............................................................................8

Scientific Advances and Expanded Applications of DNA Analysis................................9

Lesser Offenses.........................................................................................................................9

Feline and Canine DNA........................................................................................................11

Missing Persons DNA Databases......................................................................................11

Near-match Searching.........................................................................................................11

Is the DNA Match Linked with the Criminal History Record Information? ...............12

Is the Criminal History Record Information Linked with the DNA Match? ...............12

Sharing Information between CODIS, AFIS, and Criminal History Systems:

 Potential Benefits.......................................................................................................................14

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................15

Bibliography....................................................................................................................................16

About the Authors........................................................................................................................18
ii
iii

Preface

The value of DNA in verifying identities, excluding suspects, 

and solving crimes—particularly those that have gone unsolved 

for years—has far exceeded the expectations of those who first 

noticed its forensic potential more than 20 years ago. DNA 

Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing was prepared 

to inform the broad justice community about the evolution of 

DNA identification and its expanding uses. 

The report examines the history of DNA use by forensic 

investigators, considers the economics of DNA use as it relates to 

public safety, and reviews privacy concerns relating to the release 

of an individual’s genetic information. The report explores issues 

associated with the coupling of criminal history information with 

DNA data and recommends that mechanisms be put in place that 

would make for a more efficient justice system while effectively 

continuing to address privacy concerns.

The report utilizes some terms that may not be familiar to those 

not associated with the DNA forensics community. Therefore, this 

report includes a glossary to assist readers.

Dramatic advances in DNA forensics will continue to propel 

this once-exotic science into more mainstream criminal 

justice applications, perhaps even allowing it to someday 

replace the fingerprint as the primary tool for verifying 

identities. It is hoped that this report allows readers to understand 

how these developments have occurred, and to monitor the 

progress of DNA forensics in a more informed capacity.
iv

Glossary

While the science of DNA is replete 

with complicated concepts, 

components, and procedures, this 

report was written with the layman 

in mind; thus, scientific jargon was 

kept to a minimum. However, it 

would be difficult, if not impossible, 

to write a report such as this without 

including some of the terminology 

common to forensic DNA use. The 

following list is provided to assist 

readers in understanding the 

processes through which forensic 

investigators use DNA to identify 

perpetrators when traditional crimesolving methods have failed.

ABO blood typing

A human blood-typing test that 

uses antibodies from bodily fluids 

to determine whether an individual 

has A, B, O, or AB type blood. ABO

typing was commonly used in the 

past, before the implementation of 

DNA analyses.

Combined DNA Index System 

(CODIS)

An electronic database of DNA

profiles obtained from unsolved 

crimes and from individuals 

convicted of particular crimes. 

CODIS contributors include the Local 

DNA Index System (LDIS), the State 

DNA Index System (SDIS), and the 

National DNA Index System (NDIS). 

CODIS is maintained by the FBI.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)

A nucleic acid that contains genetic 

instructions for the biological 

development of all cellular forms 

of life. DNA is responsible for 

most inherited traits in humans. 

Forensic scientists use DNA from 

blood, semen, skin, saliva, or hair 

recovered from crime scenes to 

identify possible suspects through 

DNA profiling, during which the 

length of repetitive DNA sections 

are compared. An individual’s DNA is 

unique except for identical twins.

DNA polymerase

An enzyme that assists in DNA

replication.

Electrophoresis

A process that occurs when 

molecules placed in an electronic 

field migrate toward either the 

positive or negative pole according 

to their charge. The process is 

used to separate and sometimes 

purify macromolecules that differ 

in size, charge, or conformation. 

Electrophoresis is one of the 

most widely used techniques in 

biochemistry and molecular biology.

Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA)

Differs from nuclear DNA in location, 

sequence, quantity in the cell, and 

mode of inheritance. MtDNA is 

found in a cell’s cytoplasm and is 

present in much greater numbers 

than nuclear DNA, which is found in 

a cell’s nucleus. In humans, MtDNA is 

inherited strictly from the mother. It 

is useful in identifying individuals in 

areas not conducive to nuclear DNA

analyses, such as when nuclear DNA

cannot be obtained in sufficient 

quantities or quality. Also, MtDNA

use in identification is less efficient 

than nuclear DNA analysis in that 

it cannot differentiate between 

individuals who share the same 

mother. The statistical probabilities 

for identification from MtDNA are 

not as unique as nuclear DNA.

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)

A process through which millions 

of copies of a single DNA segment 

are produced in a matter of hours 

without using living organisms 

like E. coli or yeast. The process 

relies on several basic components, 

including a DNA template, which 

contains the DNA segment to 

be amplified; two primers, which 

determine the beginning and end 

of the region to be amplified; DNA

polymerase, which copies the region 

to be amplified; Deoxynucleotidestriphosphate, from which the DNA

polymerase builds the new DNA; 

and a buffer, which provides an 

appropriate chemical environment 

for the DNA polymerase. PCR

occurs when the components are 

combined in a test tube, which is 

then heated and cooled to different 

temperatures to encourage various 

chemical reactions.

Restriction Fragment Length 

Polymorphism (RFLP)

A process through which DNA is 

cut by restriction enzymes into 

restriction fragments. The enzymes 

only cut when they recognize 

specific DNA sequences. The 

distance between the locations 

cut by restriction enzymes varies 

between individuals, allowing their 

genetic identification.

Single Tandem Repeats (STR)

Small DNA regions that contain DNA

segments that repeat several times 

in tandem. Repeated sequences are 

a fundamental feature of genomes, 

such as DNA, and play an important 

role in genomic fingerprinting. 

CODIS uses 13 STR sequences as 

genetic markers.

Variable Number of Tandem 

Repeats (VNTR)

Short DNA sequences ranging from 

14 to 40 nucleotides organized 

into clusters of tandem repeats 

of between 4 and 40 repeats per 

occurrence. VNTRs cut by restriction 

enzymes reveal a pattern of bands 

unique to each individual. They play 

an important role in forensic crime 

investigations.
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing 

Overview

The application of DNA technology to the biological 

evidence in criminal casework has revolutionized 

forensic science. The ability to identify, with a high 

degree of certainty, a suspect in violent crimes 

now routinely provides valuable leads to criminal 

investigators worldwide, often in circumstances 

where there are no eyewitnesses. Forensic DNA 

technology is a very sensitive and universally 

accepted scientific technique. The Combined DNA 

Index System (CODIS), administered by the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is a distributed 

database with three hierarchical tiers enabling 

local, statewide, and national comparisons among 

convicted offender profiles and with crime scene 

samples. As of June 2006, it contains more than 

3.3 million convicted offender profiles and more 

than 142,000 profiles from crime scenes, and has 

produced 36,000 “investigation-aided” matches 

in 49 States and 2 Federal laboratories.1 DNA 

analysis also benefits the innocent. Suspects may 

be eliminated before arrest or exonerated even after 

conviction.

Information is the lifeblood of the criminal justice 

system. Despite the wonders of DNA science and 

technology, DNA use cannot achieve its full promise 

in the context of criminal justice applications 

unless there are efficient means in place for 

criminal investigators to obtain the criminal 

history information of a suspect when a match is 

made between physical evidence collected at the 

crime scene and a profile stored in a local, State, or 

national database. Once the crime lab completes 

its work, should it report a match, the investigator 

must learn as much as possible about the suspect. 

Traditionally, the criminal history record (or “rap 

sheet”) is a primary source for learning about the 

nature of the suspect’s past offenses and provides 

a path to physical description information, a 

“mugshot” photograph, past modus operandi 

information, and known associates, and is often of 

considerable value in locating the suspect.

1 Source: FBI CODIS web site at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis.

2 Letter from Thomas F. Callaghan, Ph.D., Chief, CODIS Unit, FBI Laboratory, 

to Owen Greenspan, Director, Law and Policy Program, SEARCH, The National 

Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, dated June 16, 2005. Hereafter, Callaghan Letter.

3 Ibid.

Privacy advocates 

have consistently 

raised concerns 

about linkages 

between personal 

identifying 

information and 

an individual’s 

DNA, which can 

reveal genetic 

information about 

the individual 

and his/her 

family members. This issue has led to policies and 

practices whereby there is no formal interface 

between CODIS and any criminal history record 

information systems. Further, CODIS does not store 

criminal history information, nor was it designed 

to include any personally identifying information 

about the subject of the DNA sample.2 States have 

tended to follow the FBI’s lead in this area. In fact, 

a number of the State laws expressly prohibit the 

linking of criminal history record information with 

an offender’s DNA profile.3

Yet establishing linkages between DNA databases 

and State and Federal criminal history databases 

would enable an investigator to know that a 

suspect’s DNA profile is available for comparison. 

Perhaps just as important, a linkage mechanism 

could serve as a flag to indicate that an offender’s 

DNA sample has not been obtained, although 

required by law. Consequently, the offender’s 

DNA profile would be unavailable for comparison 

with material recovered from a crime scene. The 

challenge for the criminal justice community is to 

create an environment that efficiently leverages the 

power of DNA technology, while allowing for sharing 

(or at least access to) essential information in a 

manner that respects privacy concerns.
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing

DNA Collection Legislation

The FBI is responsible for the administration and 

support of the National DNA Index System (NDIS) 

in accordance with Federal law.4

All States have enacted laws requiring the collection 

of DNA from offenders convicted of specified 

crimes. Many States are moving to expand the 

circumstances mandating collection and retention 

to include more or all convicted felony offenders 

and some convicted misdemeanor offenders, 

extending or eliminating the statute of limitations 

for certain offenses where DNA evidence exists, 

and even requiring the taking of DNA samples 

subsequent to arrest but before disposition.

For example, the enactment of California 

Proposition 69 in November 2004 authorized the 

collection of DNA samples from adults and juveniles 

convicted of any felony offense, as well as adults 

and juveniles arrested for or charged with felony 

sex offenses, murder, or voluntary manslaughter. 

4 42 U.S.C. § 14132.

5 Callaghan Letter.

Database

Criteria

Number of

Jurisdictions*

Sex Offenses 55

Murder 54

Offenses Against Children 54

Kidnapping 54

Assault and Battery 53

Robbery 53

Burglary 52

All Felonies 44

Juveniles 31

Table 15

* The 55 jurisdictions referenced include the 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, Federal Offenders under authority of 

42 U.S.C. § 14135a, and persons charged by the U.S. 

Department of Defense under authority of 10 U.S.C.

§ 1565. 6 Patrick A. Langan, Erica L. Schmitt, and Matthew R. Durose, Recidivism of Sex 

Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2003) at p. 2. Hereafter, Langan 

report.

7 Ibid., p. 1.

8 Nicholas P. Lovrich, et al. (Pullman, WA: Washington State University and 

London: Smith Alling Lane, February 2004) at p. 3.

9 Ted R. Miller, Mark A. Cohen, and Brian Wiersema (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1996) at p. 1.

Effective in 2009, all adults arrested for or charged 

with any felony offense in California will be subject 

to DNA sample collection. The trend toward 

increasing the number and types of designated 

offenses that require the taking of DNA samples 

will significantly increase local, State, and national 

database populations. Table 1 summarizes the 

frequency with which State laws direct or authorize 

the taking of DNA samples for certain convictions.

DNA, Economics, and Public 

Safety

Recidivism is the fundamental factor that provides 

the underlying rationale for the DNA database 

program. As noted in a 2003 report on sex offender 

recidivism:

•	 “Within 3 years following their release, 38.6% 

(3,741) of the 9,691 released sex offenders 

were returned to prison.”6

•	 “The first 12 months following their release 

from a State prison was the period when 40% 

of sex crimes were allegedly committed by the 

released sex offenders.”7

The National Forensic DNA Study Report found that 

there is a backlog of over one-half million criminal 

cases containing unanalyzed DNA evidence.8 These 

cases either have not been sent to laboratories, 

or are in laboratories awaiting analyses. A 1996 

report, Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look,

examines the many tangible and intangible costs 

of crime as it pertains to victims in the United 

States.9 The authors estimate the tangible costs of 

rape to be approximately $5,000 per assault. When 

intangible costs that affect the victim’s quality of life 
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing 

are considered, the cost estimate rises to $87,000 

per assault. The report also projects that violent 

crime leads to 3% of all medical spending and 14% 

of injury-related medical spending. The aggregate 

tangible costs of medical spending for rape is $7.5 

billion per year. When pain, suffering, and lost 

quality of life are considered as well as out-of-pocket 

expenses, the aggregate annual cost of rape is 

estimated to be $127 billion. Personal crime medical 

costs total $105 billion per year, with total intangible 

quality of life costs totaling $450 billion per year. 

There is a clear cost benefit for timely DNA analyses 

for violent crime cases. For example, a Master of 

Business Administration thesis, “Business Case 

for Forensic DNA,”10 discussed how solving sexual 

assaults with DNA analyses would eventually lessen 

recidivism and be cost effective.

DNA technology is expensive, but the potential cost 

benefits are staggering—given both the tangible 

(DNA analyses and victim’s medical treatment) and 

intangible (quality of life for victim and community) 

costs incurred because of crime that can be solved 

with the aid of DNA technology. The national 

United Kingdom (UK) DNA database contains 3.5% 

of its population in the convicted offender index 

and yields a 40% hit rate. The UK Forensic Science 

Service’s DNA database of 3 million convicted 

offender samples not only has the probability of 

delivering a hit 40% of the time, but it solves .8 

additional cases per hit and prevents 7.8 crimes for 

every hit.11 The UK system operates under a legal 

system significantly different from that of the United 

States—it is one that allows DNA collection from 

arrestees and even in the course of neighborhood 

sweeps.

The growth in reliance on 

forensic DNA programs 

has led to significant 

casework backlogs in 

public laboratories. 

A Bureau of Justice 

Statistics census of 

publicly funded forensic 

crime laboratories, 50 

Largest Crime Labs, 2002, 

identified compelling data 

for the ever-increasing 

caseloads on public 

DNA laboratories.12 Only 

one-third of the DNA cases submitted to public 

laboratories are analyzed. Most public forensic 

laboratories can only analyze the most serious cases 

that are scheduled for court. This leaves potential 

evidence from many other cases unanalyzed. A 

study in one State indicated that lesser offense cases 

provide the majority (81%) of hits in CODIS rather 

than homicides and rapes.13 There is a 1.69 ratio 

of backlogged to completed DNA cases per year. 

Simply stated, if a laboratory analyzes 1,000 DNA 

cases, the same laboratory carries a backlog of 1,690 

cases, or 1.69 years of work.

The Science and Evolving 

Technology of DNA

Comparisons between latent prints left at crime 

scenes and known fingerprints from suspects had 

been the traditional method for using physical 

evidence to place individuals at the scenes of 

crimes. Manual searching of fingerprint files in the 

absence of a suspect, known as “cold searching,” 

was a tedious, challenging, and often impractical 

process. In the 1980s, with the advent of automated 

fingerprint identification systems (AFIS), police 

departments no longer needed a suspect. Partial 

fingerprints recovered from a crime scene could be 

automatically searched against massive databases 

of arrest fingerprints with greater accuracy and 

10 Ray A. Wickenheiser, University of Louisiana, Lafayette (2002).

11 Christopher H. Asplen, The Application of DNA in England and Wales (London: 

Smith Alling Lane, January 2004) at p. 1.

12 Matthew J. Hickman and Joseph L. Peterson (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2004).

13 Virginia Department of Forensic Science, “DNA Database Statistics,” (2005).
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing

speed than previously 

imaginable. 

The scientific technology 

of DNA profiles has 

added a new dimension 

to the melding of crime 

scene evidence with 

biometric information. 

DNA technology uses 

statistical probabilities 

to determine the rarity 

of one random person 

having a specific genetic profile. This is done using 

the different sizes of 13 locations (loci) found in 

human DNA. The probabilities of an individual 

having a unique DNA profile can be one in a billion 

or more. These probabilities are so rare that they 

can be used as a statement of identification. Latent 

fingerprint comparisons rely on the expertise and 

experience of the latent fingerprint examiner. DNA 

forensic profiling and comparisons rely on statistical 

probabilities to determine the uniqueness of the 

profile.

Over some 20 years, forensic laboratories have 

evolved from using traditional ABO blood-typing 

methods to eliminate or include suspects to 

progressively more efficient methods of forensic 

DNA analyses. The earlier methods of ABO and 

electrophoresis could categorically exclude suspects 

but were of little value as methods for determining 

positive identification.14 Today, the newest DNA 

analysis method—multiplex polymerase chain 

reaction single tandem repeat (PCR STR)—is 

capable of producing sole-source attribution 

probability of one in a trillion or more.

14 J.M. Butler, Forensic DNA Typing: Biology, Technology, and Genetics of STR 

Markers, 2nd ed. (Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2005). Hereafter, 

Butler report.

In the early 1950s, James Watson and Francis 

Crick first described the structure and a possible 

role for the double-stranded DNA molecule. The 

first DNA typing technology used successfully in 

forensic laboratories was originally described in 

1985 as “DNA fingerprinting” by Dr. Alec Jeffreys.15

Dr. Jeffreys recognized that certain regions of DNA 

contained repeats of the same sequences, and that 

these repeat regions, or variable number of tandem 

repeats (VNTR), vary in length from one individual 

to the next. Dr. Jeffreys used a molecular biology 

technique, referred to as restriction fragment 

length polymorphism (RFLP). At that time RFLP, in 

conjunction with VNTR, provided a powerful tool 

for forensic DNA typing. However, it was expensive, 

time-consuming (6–8 

weeks), a safety hazard due 

to the use of radioactive 

probes, and required a 

relatively large amount of 

intact DNA.

In 1986, a molecular DNA 

technique known as PCR 

was developed.16 PCR helped 

revolutionize forensic DNA 

typing by amplifying very 

small amounts of DNA 

recovered from crime scenes. 

In this highly sensitive amplification technique, a 

DNA molecule is synthesized and replicated. Each 

newly synthesized DNA molecule can also serve 

as template DNA in future cycles, thus producing 

millions of copies of specific target DNA in a threehour run. Overall, PCR technology is a sensitive, 

safe, fast, robust, and economical method. The PCR 

DNA technology relates specifically to the DNA that 

is located in the nucleus of human cells. Typically, 

the majority of crime scene evidence suitable for 

nuclear PCR DNA techniques is blood, saliva, and 

semen.

James Watson

Francis Crick

15 Alec J. Jeffreys, V. Wilson, and S.L. Thein, “Individual-specific ‘fingerprints’ of 

human DNA,” Nature 316: 76–79 (July 4–10, 1985).

16 K. Mullis, et al., “Specific enzymatic amplification in vitro: the polymerase 

chain reaction,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 51: 

263–273 (1986).
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing 

A second type 

of forensic 

analyses is 

mitochondrial 

DNA (mtDNA), 

which is found 

outside of the 

cell nucleus in 

the cytoplasm. 

MtDNA is 

present in 

much higher 

volumes and 

is less susceptible to environmental degradation. 

It is also possible to obtain an mtDNA profile from 

cells without nuclei, such as hair shafts. This type 

of DNA is helpful in severely degraded evidence, 

such as decomposed tissue and bone. However, the 

statistical probabilities derived from mitochondrial 

analyses are not as unique or rare as nuclear 

DNA at present and the technique is costly and 

time-consuming. It is hoped that automation and 

efficiencies gained from economies of scale will 

decrease the cycle time and costs, and increase the 

uniqueness of the statistical probabilities of this very 

useful technique.

MtDNA testing has been popularized owing to its 

ability to provide results when other specimens may 

not yield typical nuclear DNA results. For example, 

with highly charred remains, it is oftentimes not 

possible to obtain a full profile using other methods. 

However, with this approach it is frequently 

possible to recover a sufficient quantity of mtDNA 

for analysis. Further, even degraded specimens, 

either through environmental insults or exposure to 

chemical challenges, can produce a mitochondrial 

DNA profile. MtDNA is also better suited for 

recovering useful material from dried skeletal 

remains, older fingernails, and smaller sample sizes 

than other methods.

Another distinct feature of mtDNA is that it is 

maternally inherited. When the egg and sperm 

meet, only nuclear DNA is contributed from 

the spermatozoon to the fertilized egg. This 

characteristic can be helpful in forensic cases, such 

as analysis of the remains of a missing person, where 

known maternal relatives can provide reference 

samples for direct comparisons to the mtDNA 

profile generated from the questioned remains. A 

mother passes her mtDNA profile to her children 

and shares her mtDNA with her mother, her 

siblings (both male and female), and her biological 

maternal relatives (male or female). Mitochondrial 

DNA testing has been successful in identifying 

soldiers from the Vietnam War and World War II by 

comparison to distant maternal relatives; identifying 

remains recovered from historical casework such as 

those of Tsar Nicholas II and his family; identifying 

the victims of mass disasters; and identifying 

missing persons.

Table 2 illustrates the rapid evolution of DNA 

analysis by the FBI.

1985 Dr. Alex Jeffreys develops RFLP probes

1988 FBI begins RFLP casework

1993 FBI begins PCR STR casework

1998 FBI initiates CODIS with 13 STR loci

1999 FBI and other labs stop RFLP casework

2002 FBI initiates mtDNA casework

2004 FBI initiates mtDNA regional labs

Table 2: The Rapid Evolution of DNA Analysis by the FBI

Forensic labs continue to push the sensitivity 

threshold even lower by performing PCR 

amplification on select regions of the DNA molecule. 

A number of benefits arise as analysis techniques 

improve. These include high throughput potential 

and an overall decrease in turnaround time for most 

DNA typing casework. Before recent improvements 

in the technology (known as STR/PCR technology, 

referred to earlier as PCR STR on page 4), attempts 

in profiling degraded DNA samples usually 

produced inconclusive results. Now, forensic labs 

even have some success in obtaining profiles from 

fragmented and degraded DNA samples at disaster 

sites such as TWA Flight 80017 and Swiss Air Flight 

111.18

17 Jack Ballantyne, “Mass disaster genetics,” Nature Genetics 15(4): 329–331 

(1997).

18 Butler report.
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing

The World Trade Center (WTC) disaster of 

September 11, 2001, presented the forensic science 

community with the challenge of analyzing a large 

number of seriously degraded victim samples. 

Developing profiles from victims of the WTC with 

single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) and 

mitochondrial technology lowered the sensitivity 

threshold bar even further. Personal effects from 

victims were collected from around the world to 

analyze and compare to victim DNA profiles (see 

Figure 1). 19 It was agreed by the New York City Office 

Figure 1: Personal Effects of World Trade Center Victims Collected for DNA Analysis

Tissue Sample (1)

Dried Blood Stains (1)

DNA Kinship Report (2)

BIOBAG (4)

Tissue (7)

Towel (11)

Fingernail Scraping/Clipping (16)

Cigarette Butts (22)

Bedding (23)

Prepared Blood Stain Card (91)

Known Blood Sample (113)

Underwear (195)

Comb (279)

Clothing (328)

Hair (538)

Miscellaneous (868)

Razorblade (1,048)

Hairbrush (1,201)

Toothbrush (2,182)

Case File & Documentation (3,117)

Swabs (6,886)

Extracted DNA (23,608)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 23,000

of the Chief Medical Examiner (NYCOCME) and 

the New York State Police (NYSP) that the personal 

effects would be analyzed at the NYSP Forensic 

Investigation Center in Albany. The NYCOCME 

would analyze the victim samples. The two agencies 

also worked together to design and implement 

an evidence bar code tracking system and an 

intralaboratory network to compare victim and 

personal effect profiles. On April 3, 2005, four years 

and at least $80 million later, this unprecedented 

identification effort ended. Of the 2,749 victims, 

1,592 were identified by a variety of forensic 

techniques. Only 111 identifications were made 

Number of Items by Type

(Includes administrative and derivative items)

19 President’s DNA Initiative, Lessons Learned From 9/11: DNA Identification 

in Mass Fatality Incidents, NCJ 214781 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 2006) at p. 59.
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing 

in the last 2 years from the 19,915 tissue samples 

recovered from the WTC site. The remaining samples 

have been archived in climate-controlled storage 

awaiting even more sensitive DNA techniques in the 

future.20

The latest forensic technology that shows 

considerable promise in exploiting greater 

sensitivity in DNA typing is low copy number 

(LCN). Armed with this latest technology, forensic 

scientists in the near future may be able to routinely 

obtain a complete DNA profile from only a suspect’s 

fingerprint.21 Skin cells from a latent fingerprint 

can yield a DNA profile. An unidentifiable latent 

fingerprint could then be used to identify a suspect 

at a crime scene through the use of DNA. The 

DNA profile from the latent print could also be 

used to add probative weight to a latent print that 

is identified to a suspect. There are also partially 

degraded DNA profiles that could be compared to a 

suspect’s CODIS DNA if the law enforcement agency 

has established identification with fingerprints.

In the future, we may see well educated and highly 

trained investigators or forensic scientists arrive 

at a crime scene equipped with an ultramodern 

hand-held “laboratory on a chip” DNA profiling 

device. Researchers are already in the early stages 

of validating such prototypes of a portable DNA 

profiling unit.22 It is a short leap to envisioning the 

possibility of recovering physical evidence and 

processing it on-site. At the crime scene, a DNA 

profile will be produced, and through interface 

with flagged criminal history databases, the case 

detective is informed of the identity of a prime 

suspect.

23 Steve Hogan, Deputy Counsel, New York State Police, personal conversation 

with Mark Dale, Director, Northeast Regional Forensic Institute, May 25, 2005.

Legal Strategies to Obtain DNA 

Samples

A DNA sample can be obtained by any of four basic 

legal strategies:23

Voluntary

A suspect may be asked to voluntarily submit a 

DNA sample to be compared to a casework forensic 

sample. A blood draw was originally used for the 

sample, but now it is more common to use a buccal 

swab: a small toothbrush or cotton swab that is 

rubbed against the inside of the cheek to collect 

inner-mouth epithelial cells for DNA analyses.

Court Order

A court determines that there is reasonable cause 

to authorize a law enforcement agency to collect 

a DNA sample from a suspect for comparison to a 

forensic sample.

Law

A statute authorizes the collection of a DNA sample 

from a defined group of individuals, such as 

convicted offenders or arrestees, for inclusion in the 

State DNA database.

Abandonment

The suspect gives up control and possession of an 

item that contains his DNA. For example, a cigarette 

butt is smoked by a suspect and then discarded. 

A detective observes the suspect abandon the 

cigarette butt and leave the immediate area. The 

detective recovers the cigarette butt.

20 Eric Lipton, “At Limits of Science, 9/11 ID Effort Comes to End,” New York 

Times, April 3, 2005, Section I, Page 29.

21 F. Alessandrini, et al., “Fingerprints as evidence for a genetic profile morphological study on fingerprints and analysis of exogenous and individual factors 

affecting DNA typing,” J. Forensic Science 48(3): 1–7 (2003); and A. Barbaro, et al., 

“Anonymous letters? DNA and fingerprints technologies combined to solve a 

case,” Forensic Science International 146 Suppl: S133–S134 (2004).

22 Cheuk-Wai Kan, et al., “DNA sequencing and genotyping in miniaturized 

electrophoresis systems,” Electrophoresis 25: 3564–3588 (November 2004).
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing

CODIS: The Combined DNA 

Index System

Sponsored by the FBI, the Combined DNA Index 

System—CODIS—began as a pilot project with 

14 participant State and local laboratories in 

1990. Today, the FBI Laboratory’s CODIS Unit is 

responsible for the software used by 177 Federal, 

State, and local forensic DNA laboratories that 

participate in the National DNA Index System 

(NDIS), for the operation of the National DNA 

Index, and for the support of the NDIS Procedures 

Board. Participation in NDIS is governed by a 

Memorandum of Understanding between the 

States and the FBI, as well as NDIS Operational 

Procedures.24

The primary performance measure 

for CODIS is a “confirmed match,” 

commonly referred to as an 

“Investigation Aided” match, due 

to the inherent complexity in 

determining the results that arise from 

follow-up to the DNA hit report. For 

example, although a DNA database 

match may have identified a possible 

assailant, the police or prosecutor 

may elect not to arrest due to lack 

of cooperation from the victim, or 

because of the time barrier imposed 

by a statute of limitations, or because 

further investigation might reveal that 

the suspect identified through the 

DNA match could not have committed 

the crime, but may have had access 

to the crime scene or related physical 

evidence.

When a hit occurs in CODIS between 

laboratories within a State or between 

profiles contributed from different 

States, the CODIS Administrator for 

the State laboratory first confirms the 

identity and the underlying qualifying 

offense for which the DNA sample 

of the convicted offender was taken. 

In some jurisdictions, the State DNA 

24 Callaghan letter.

Index System (SDIS) laboratory may conduct 

additional confirmatory analyses of the convicted 

offender DNA sample. A notification is then made to 

the two laboratories that they have a hit in CODIS. 

Laboratories then contact the respective police 

departments and prosecutors and inform them of 

the hit. (See Figure 2.) The hit provides reasonable 

cause to collect a final confirmatory DNA sample 

from the convicted offender, once identified and 

located, usually with the assistance of the criminal 

history record. This DNA sample is then compared 

to the actual evidence in the case as the final quality 

control check for the entire CODIS system. The 

hit could also provide linkage to other unsolved or 

solved cases.

Figure 2: The CODIS System

Local DNA

Laboratory

(Local DNA Index System – LDIS)

Suspect and Crime Scene

Samples

State DNA

Laboratory

(Local DNA Index System – LDIS)

Convicted Offender and Crime

Scene Samples

National (FBI) DNA

Laboratory

(Local DNA Index System – LDIS)

Convicted Offender and Crime

Scene Samples

CRIMINAL

HISTORY

Crime Scene

DNA Evidence

Police

Local Police

Department

DNA HIT

NOTIFICATION

DNA HIT

NOTIFICATION

DNA HIT

NOTIFICATION

COMBINED DNA INDEX SYSTEM (CODIS) NATIONAL DNA INDEX SYSTEM– FBI (NDIS)

STATE DNA INDEX SYSTEM– (SDIS)

LOCAL DNA INDEX SYSTEM – (LDIS)
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing 

25 DNA in “Minor” Crimes Yields Major Benefits in Public Safety (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 2004).

26 Langan report.

Scientific Advances and 

Expanded Applications of DNA 

Analysis

Although the nation’s justice system has placed 

greater emphasis on DNA identification over the 

past 20 years, in crimes of violence the utility 

of DNA typing reaches further. The use of DNA 

testing for linking a suspect to a violent crime, 

determining serial crimes, reconstructing an 

accident, and exculpating the innocent is powerful 

technology. However, DNA is proving to be an 

ever more remarkable tool as its potential to be 

applied in other criminal justice-related situations 

is increasingly being explored. This section 

explores some nontraditional applications of DNA 

technology that may assist in investigations today 

and in the future.

Lesser Offenses

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) 

leveraged DNA technology to solve crimes not 

usually associated with DNA analysis, such as 

burglary, assault, and larceny.25 Conceptualized from 

data presented in the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

report Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from 

Prison in 1994,

26 the NYPD Laboratory’s Biotracks 

program is a pilot project focused on one particular 

geographic area: Queens County. Crime scene 

response teams were trained to identify probative 

items that might contain biological evidence (e.g., 

cigarette butts, clothing, and drink containers 

with possible saliva) and to submit them to the 

laboratory for processing. The goals of the Biotracks 

program were to (1) solve crimes involving the 

commission of lesser offenses—crimes for which 

physical evidence is often not collected or, when 

collected, is not usually subjected to DNA analysis; 

and (2) determine the extent to which DNA from 

these crime scenes could be linked to more serious 

crimes such as rapes or homicides. The program 

obtained a hit rate of over 30% and identified 

linkages between lesser offenses with open rape 

and homicide cases. Due in part to the success and 

lessons learned from Biotracks, the New York City 

Medical Examiner’s Office is planning to “vastly 

expand its forensic biology laboratory, which 

will ultimately redefine the way difficult-to-solve 

crimes, such as home burglaries and stolen property 

offenses, are investigated and prosecuted.”27

Table 3 depicts the number of arrests for lesser 

and violent offenses attributed to the 38 offenders 

identified in the Biotracks program. The offenders 

clearly possessed a history of both violent and 

lesser offenses. Table 4 depicts the prior convictions 

for the 38 offenders identified in the Biotracks 

program. There was a clear history of convictions 

from both lesser offense and violent crimes. Caseto-case linkages were developed between a violent 

crime and lesser offenses (2004 burglary/1994 

rape), and between a burglary and a robbery. The 

Biotracks program has provided valuable leads for 

law enforcement that have resulted in arrests and 

convictions. The 29 arrestees from the Biotracks 

program resulted in 18 guilty pleas to 27 offenses, 

while 3 were indicted for 4 offenses each. Eighty 

percent of these individuals were convicted of 

violent felonies, one individual for homicide, and 

one individual for four sexual offenses.28

27 Reuven Blau, “City ME’s Office Expands Crime Evidence Duties,” The ChiefLeader (New York City), September 2, 2005, at p.1.

28 Source: New York City Police Department Laboratory.
10 DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing

Recidivism Prior Arrests

0

50

100

38 Offenders

# Arrests

Lesser Offense Violent Felonies

Table 3: Recidivism Prior Arrests of Offenders in Biotracks Program

Table 4: Prior Convictions of Offenders in Biotracks Program

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

# Convictions

38 Offenders

Prior Convictions

Lesser Offenses

Violent Felonies
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing 11

Feline and Canine DNA

The American Pet Products Manufacturers 

Association’s (APPMA) 2003/2004 National Pet 

Owners Survey reports that the number of U.S. petowning households has increased by more than 

10 million since 1992. Current methods used to 

identify dog and cat biological material are nuclear 

STR analysis and mitochondrial (mtDNA) analysis. 

These techniques use the same procedures that are 

used by crime laboratories worldwide to identify 

human biological material. Animal DNA evidence is 

most often contributed when the animal falls victim 

to a crime, e.g., shooting death of a dog during a 

burglary, or when the animal is a companion to a 

suspect, e.g., shedding of animal hair at the crime 

scene.

In 2002, Danielle Van Dam was reported missing 

from her home in San Diego, California. She was 

found dead in a remote area 25 days later. David 

Westerfield, the Van Dam family’s neighbor, was 

arrested. Among other evidence, investigators 

had recovered dog hairs similar to the Van Dams’ 

Weimaraner dog in Westerfield’s motor home, on 

a quilt, and in the lint trap of his dryer. Canine 

STR typing, performed by the Veterinary Genetics 

Laboratory at the University of California at Davis, 

was unsuccessful. An mtDNA match between the 

evidence hairs and the Van Dam family dog was 

entered as evidence. 

Hair, of both human and animal origin, is a common 

piece of evidence from a crime scene. Because 

people and their pets live in close proximity, the 

recovery of animal hair evidence is quite possible. 

However, animal hair evidence is often overlooked 

as a critical form of evidence. Animal hair, in 

particular, can be found on clothing, in homes, 

and in cars. Because hair is easily transferred in 

daily activities, transfer of evidence occurs at every 

crime scene. The challenge is to identify this useful 

evidence. The passive transfer of animal hair can 

show a link to a crime scene. Analysis of canine 

evidence has been reported in scores of criminal 

investigations and trials nationwide. 

Missing Persons DNA Databases

The University of North Texas Health Science 

Center has created the Texas Missing Persons DNA 

Database, an mtDNA database that contributes 

mtDNA data to the national database for searches 

of missing persons. The objective of this database is 

to assist in the identification of kidnapped children, 

runaway children, and skeletal unidentified human 

remains. The Missing Persons Clearinghouse for 

the State of Texas reports that 70,000 people are 

reported missing each year in that State, with 

approximately 7,000 active cases at any given time.

A national missing persons DNA database is 

administered by the FBI. DNA exemplars from 

missing persons are searched against unidentified 

human remains. For example, a crime victim’s 

remains are uncovered in a shallow grave, or 

a deceased victim is found with no form of 

identification with the body. The DNA from the 

unknown victim is searched against the missing 

person DNA data in the hopes of making an 

identification.

Near-match Searching

Close biological relatives—parents, children, and 

siblings—are known to often have similar DNA 

profiles. Near-match searching linked two of the 

September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 11 

hijackers as being brothers. Florida has employed 

near-match searching to identify the fathers of 

several babies born to rape victims. The Denver 

District Attorney’s Office, in the first case in which 

the FBI has allowed near-match search information 

to be shared between States, is using identifying 

information for a convicted Oregon felon as an 

investigative lead to try to identify a suspect in a 

rape case that occurred three years earlier.29

29 Richard Willing, “DNA database can flag suspects through relatives,” USA 

Today, August 23, 2006, page 2A.
12 DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing

Is the DNA Match Linked with 

the Criminal History Record 

Information?

No. Because an individual’s DNA has the potential 

to reveal genetic information about that individual 

and his/her family, privacy advocates continue 

to voice concerns about the proliferation of DNA 

offender databases and access to the DNA data 

in those databases. The “eugenics” argument is 

that genes, unlike fingerprint patterns, contain 

information about an individual’s racial and ethnic 

heritage, disease susceptibility, and even behavioral 

propensities.30 Insurance companies, employers, 

or government agencies might raid the data for 

health-related information, leading to genetic 

discrimination against individuals or groups. 

Behavioral researchers will not be able to resist a 

database of convicted criminals.

The FBI Laboratory Division sponsored meetings 

with privacy and defense advocates during the 

information gathering stages for CODIS. As early 

as 1991, the FBI laboratory issued “Legislative 

Guidelines for DNA Databases,” stating that 

“personal information stored in CODIS will be 

limited ...CODIS will not store criminal history 

information.” The policy of maintaining limited 

information in CODIS remains today.31

A similar policy has been adopted by many States. 

Illustrative of State DNA databases laws are:

• The California Penal Code provides that “DNA 

and other forensic identification information 

retained by the Department of Justice ...shall 

not be included in the state summary criminal 

history information.”32

30 Simon A. Cole, “Fingerprint Identification and the Criminal Justice System: 

Historical Lessons for the DNA Debate,” in The Technology of Justice: DNA and 

the Criminal Justice System, David Lazer (ed.) (Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy 

School of Government, Harvard University, June 2003) at p. 19.

31 Callaghan letter.

32 California Penal Code § 299.5(d)).

• A Florida statute provides that “any analysis, 

when completed, shall be entered into 

the automated data maintained by the 

Department of Law Enforcement ... and shall 

not be included in the state central criminal 

justice information repository.”33

• A Rhode Island law provides that “all DNA 

typing results and the DNA records shall 

be stored in a computer database after all 

personal identifiers have been removed.”34

Clearly, there is considerable agreement at both the 

national and State levels that it is inappropriate to 

include personal information in DNA databases, 

including criminal history record information that 

typically includes physical, biographic, and other 

descriptive data.

Is the Criminal History Record 

Information Linked with the 

DNA Match?

Again, the answer is no. In May 2005 none of the 31 

State criminal history repositories responding to a 

survey by SEARCH, The National Consortium for 

Justice Information and Statistics, reported making 

provision for the inclusion of a subject’s DNA profile 

on the criminal history record. However, 13 of the 

31 States reported employing a flag on the criminal 

history record to indicate that a sample had been 

collected, including 6 States that indicate whether 

the profile is located on a local, State, or national 

database.35

33 Florida Statutes § 943.325(1)(d)(6)).

34 Rhode Island General Laws § 12-1.5-10 (1).

35 The 13 States were California, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, 

New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and 

Washington.
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing 13

It is not surprising that a reference to personal 

identifying information is found on the rap sheet. 

State criminal history records typically include 

an identification segment with a provision to 

record and display some, if not all, of the following 

personally identifying descriptive elements:

• Name

• FBI Number

• State Identification Number

• Correctional Number 

• Social Security Number

• Miscellaneous Identification Number

• Driver’s License Number

• Place of Birth

• Date of Birth

• Country of Citizenship

• Sex

• Race

• Height

• Weight

• Eye Color

• Hair Color

• Skin Tone

• Fingerprint Pattern

• Photo Available

• Scars, Marks, and Tattoos

• Employment Information

• Residence

In its December 1995 report, the National Task 

Force on Increasing the Utility of the Criminal 

History Record (Criminal History Utility Task Force) 

recognized the growing use of DNA evidence in 

criminal cases and the emergence of databases of 

DNA information. Among its recommendations, the 

Task Force proposed that a data element be added 

to the identification data on the criminal history 

record to indicate the existence and location of 

DNA samples or profile data. For this data element, 

location would be indicated by the name and the 

Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) of the agency 

holding the information.36

In 1996, the Joint Task Force (JTF) on Rap Sheet 

Standardization, with representation from the FBI 

Criminal Justice Information Services Division 

and its Advisory Policy Board, the National Law 

Enforcement Telecommunications System, 

and SEARCH, was formed to implement the 

recommendations of the Criminal History Utility 

Task Force by developing a standardized criminal 

history format for interstate transmission. After 

much discussion, the JTF opted to establish an 

element that allows for two kinds of reporting 

relating to DNA. First, the most common and useful 

is to report that a DNA sample has been taken from 

the subject, has been coded, and is available from a 

specific agency. Second, and not normally included 

in a criminal history response, is the optional 

ability to transmit the actual detail of the DNA 

profile. The latter capability was included should 

implementations evolve that would be facilitated by 

the transmittal of the detail code.37 Some States that 

have yet to adopt the standardized criminal history 

record have instead opted to note on the rap sheet 

when an inmate has been convicted of a designated 

offense, and if a DNA profile is available in CODIS.38

36 SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics,

Increasing the Utility of the Criminal History Record: Report of the National Task 

Force (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

December 1995).

37 This specification is available at http://it.ojp.gov/jsr/common/list1.

jsp?keyword=1&forlist=1&community=yes.

38 Source: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, 2005.
14 DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing

Sharing Information between 

CODIS, AFIS, and Criminal 

History Systems: Potential 

Benefits

The technologies of the DNA database (CODIS), 

fingerprint comparison (AFIS), and criminal history 

record systems are highly effective, albeit costly, 

tools for law enforcement. A detective no longer 

needs to identify a suspect before a latent fingerprint 

recovered from a crime scene is compared against a 

file of fingerprints of persons previously arrested in 

the jurisdiction, State, or nation. These automated 

searches and comparisons have become routine. 

The exchange of limited information among CODIS, 

AFIS, and criminal history records would provide 

law enforcement with the awareness that potential 

probative forensic evidence exists that involves a 

convicted or arrested offender. 

Benefits derived from increased connectivity among 

different forensic technologies should be explored 

further. Of major benefit is the potential to increase 

the accuracy, timeliness, and utility of information 

provided to the criminal justice community. More 

hits, more exclusions, and a higher certainty of 

identification can be realized by combining two 

identification technologies (CODIS and AFIS) with 

criminal history databases.

Legislation authorizing the expansion of DNA 

databases to include new offenses often includes 

two components. The first is an effective date 

at which time all persons convicted of the new 

offenses are required to provide a DNA sample. The 

second provision may be retroactive and requires 

the police to have knowledge of past convictions for 

the newly authorized offenses. An accurate identity 

and criminal history of the offender is critical for 

the acquisition of the DNA sample. Technology can 

provide an electronic comparison of the databases 

(criminal history, CODIS, and AFIS) to identify who 

is required to provide samples, and who has already 

provided samples for the database. This connection 

of the AFIS, CODIS, and criminal history databases 

is even more critical when applied to violent crime 

and sexual offender registries. Law enforcement 

can then work more efficiently and accurately to 

obtain DNA samples, providing more timely leads to 

criminal investigators.
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing 15

Conclusion

The power of DNA technology both identifies and 

excludes suspects. In criminal justice applications, 

the data contained in the DNA profile is held 

separate and apart from the identification and other 

information, which constitute the criminal history 

record, a circumstance that reflects broad-based 

privacy concerns about the potential for misuse 

of DNA profile information. While there is clear 

consensus that personally identifying information 

should not be present in DNA databases, it is that 

very identifying information that an investigator 

needs to connect the DNA match to a suspect. 

The inclusion of DNA profile availability and 

location information within the criminal history 

record holds out the promise of several significant 

operational and public safety benefits. If a suspect 

has a DNA profile on the State DNA database and 

the evidence in that case has been entered into 

the database with no resulting matches, then 

law enforcement may need to consider directing 

investigative efforts elsewhere. Knowledge that 

a DNA sample has not been provided when one 

is statutorily required is also beneficial, as it will 

promote the collection of samples without which 

a correspondent reduction in public safety could 

occur, or more recidivistic crimes remain unsolved. 

Mechanisms for coupling criminal history 

information with select information about the 

availability of DNA data are readily available 

but have not been widely implemented—to the 

detriment of a more efficient justice system. 

The Interstate Criminal History Transmission 

Specification provides for an indication on the rap 

sheet that a DNA sample has been taken from the 

subject, has been coded, and is available from a 

specific agency. Similarly, several States, without 

implementing the transfer of standardized criminal 

history, have opted to flag the rap sheet with some 

or all of this information. 

39 The FBI CJIS APB is chartered under provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972 to advise the FBI Director on criminal justice information services issues. The APB is comprised of a network of working groups and 

subcommittees. The members represent local, State, and Federal law enforcement and criminal justice agencies throughout the United States, its territories, 

and Canada. Source: CJIS Advisory Policy Board Advisory Process Information 

Handbook, 2005.

At its December 2005 meeting, the FBI Criminal 

Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy 

Board (APB)39 recommended to the FBI Director 

several enhancements to address the inclusion 

of DNA flags within the Interstate Identification 

Index, the national criminal history record exchange 

system administered by the FBI, including:

(1) allowing States to flag whether a subject’s DNA 

profile is registered, and where that profile is 

located;

(2) allowing a DNA indicator to be used to 

indicate that DNA profiles are available at 

both the State and national levels;

(3) a proposed protocol for the FBI Laboratory 

Division to inform the Criminal Justice 

Information Services Division of Federal 

convicted offender DNA registration status 

data; and

(4) the inclusion of DNA indicator information 

on the criminal history record information 

response to select inquiries.

In sum, these approaches respect privacy 

concerns by keeping the barrier in place that 

prevents criminal history information and other 

personally identifying information from being 

included in DNA databases, while at the same time 

enhancing investigative capabilities through a more 

informative criminal history record.
16 DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing

Bibliography

American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors 

Laboratory Accreditation Board International 

(ASCLD/LAB), ISO 17025 program (2003). See http://

www.ascld-lab.org.

Alessandrini, F., M. Cecati, M. Pesaresi, C. Turchi, 

F. Carle, and A. Tagliabracci, “Fingerprints as 

evidence for a genetic profile morphological study 

on fingerprints and analysis of exogenous and 

individual factors affecting DNA typing,” J. Forensic 

Science 48(3): 1–7 (2003).

Asplen, Christopher H., The Application of DNA in 

England and Wales, NCJ 203971 (London: Smith 

Alling Lane, January 2004). Available through the 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service of the 

U.S. Department of Justice at http://www.ncjrs.gov/

pdffiles1/nij/grants/203971.pdf.

Ballantyne, Jack, “Mass disaster genetics,” Nature 

Genetics 15(4): 329–331 (1997).

Barbaro, A., P. Cormaci, A. Teatino, A. La Marca, 

and A. Barbaro, “Anonymous letters? DNA and 

fingerprints technologies combined to solve a case,” 

Forensic Science International 146 Suppl: S133–S134 

(2004).

Blau, Reuven, “City ME’s Office Expands Crime 

Evidence Duties,” The Chief-Leader (New York City), 

September 2, 2005, at p.1.

Butler, J.M., Forensic DNA Typing: Biology, 

Technology, and Genetics of STR Markers, 2nd ed. 

(Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2005).

Callaghan, Thomas F., Letter to Owen M. Greenspan, 

June 16, 2005.

Cole, Simon A., “Fingerprint Identification and 

the Criminal Justice System: Historical Lessons 

for the DNA Debate,” in The Technology of Justice: 

DNA and the Criminal Justice System, David Lazer 

(ed.) (Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School 

of Government, Harvard University, June 2003). 

Available at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/dnabook/.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, “CODIS, Combined 

DNA Index System” (2005). See http://www.fbi.gov/

hq/lab/codis.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice 

Information Services Division, CJIS Advisory Policy 

Board Advisory Process Information Handbook 

(Clarksburg, WV: 2005). Available at http://www.fbi.

gov/hq/cjisd/web%20page/pdf/cchandbook.pdf.

Hickman, Matthew J. and Joseph L. Peterson, Census 

of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories: 

50 Largest Crime Labs, 2002, Fact Sheet series, 

NCJ 205988 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2004). 

Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/

50lcl02.htm.

Hogan, Steve, J.D., Deputy Counsel, New York State 

Police, personal conversation with Mark Dale, May 

25, 2005.

Jeffreys, Alec J., V. Wilson, and S.L. Thein, 

“Individual-specific ‘fingerprints’ of human DNA,” 

Nature 316: 76–79 (July 4–10, 1985).

Kan, Cheuk-Wai, Christopher P. Fredlake, Erin 

A.S. Doherty, and Annelise E. Barron, “DNA 

sequencing and genotyping in miniaturized 

electrophoresis systems,” Electrophoresis 25: 

3564–3588 (November 2004). Abstract available 

at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/

abstract/109800906/ABSTRACT.

Langan, Patrick A., Erica L. Schmitt, and Matthew R. 

Durose, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from 

Prison in 1994, NCJ 198281 (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

November 2003). Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.

gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm.

Lipton, Eric, “At Limits of Science, 9/11 ID Effort 

Come to End,” New York Times, April 3, 2005, Section 

I, Page 29.
DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing 17

Lovrich, Nicholas P., Travis C. Pratt, Michael J. 

Gaffney, Charles L. Johnson, Christopher H. Asplen, 

Lisa H. Hurst, and Timothy M. Shellberg, National 

Forensic DNA Study Report: Final Report, NCJ 

203970 (Pullman, WA: Washington State University 

and London: Smith Alling Lane, February 2004). 

Available through the National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service of the U.S. Department of 

Justice at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/

grants/203970.pdf.

Miller, Ted R., Mark A. Cohen, and Brian Wiersema, 

Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look, 

Research Report series, NCJ 155282 (Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice, January 1996). Available at http://www.ojp.

usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/155282.htm.

Mullis, K., F. Faloona, S. Scharf, R. Saiki, G. Horn, and 

H. Erlich, “Specific enzymatic amplification in vitro: 

the polymerase chain reaction,” Cold Spring Harbor 

Symposium on Quantitative Biology 51: 263–273 

(1986).

New York City Police Department Laboratory, 

Biotracks Program, 2005. This pilot project is now 

being expanded to all boroughs of New York City 

under the direction of Dr. Peter Pizzola, Director of 

the New York City Police Department Laboratory.

Parker, Chauncey G., Memorandum to all New York 

State Criminal Justice Agencies (2005).

President’s DNA Initiative, Lessons Learned From 

9/11: DNA Identification in Mass Fatality Incidents, 

NCJ 214781 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 

2006). Available at http://massfatality.dna.gov/.

SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice 

Information and Statistics, Increasing the Utility of 

the Criminal History Record: Report of the National 

Task Force, NCJ 156922 (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

December 1995). Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.

gov/bjs/abstract/iuchr.htm.

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice, DNA in “Minor” Crimes Yields Major Benefits 

in Public Safety, NCJ 207203 (Washington, DC: 

November 2004). Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.

gov/nij/pubs-sum/207203.htm.

Virginia Department of Forensic Science, “DNA 

Database Statistics” (2005). For current data, see 

http://www.dfs.state.va.us/statistics/index.cfm.

Wickenheiser, Ray A., “Business Case for Forensic 

DNA,” Master’s Thesis, Master of Business 

Administration, University at Louisiana, Lafayette 

(2002).

Willing, Richard, “DNA database can flag suspects 

through relatives,” USA Today, August 23, 2006, page 

2A.
18 DNA Forensics: Expanding Uses and Information Sharing

About the Authors

W. Mark Dale is Director of the Northeast Regional 

Forensic Institute (NERFI) located at the State 

University of New York at Albany. NERFI provides 

graduate-level training and instruction in forensic 

DNA programs and serves as a resource for law 

enforcement and other governmental forensic 

laboratories through development of customized 

DNA academies. Mr. Dale previously was Director 

of the New York City Police Department Laboratory, 

Director of the New York State Police Laboratory 

System, and Director of the Washington State Patrol 

Laboratory System, and is a past President of the 

American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors.

Owen Greenspan is Director of the Law and Policy 

Program for SEARCH, The National Consortium 

for Justice Information and Statistics. SEARCH, a 

nonprofit organization of the States, is dedicated to 

improving the quality of justice and public safety 

through the use, management, and exchange of 

information; application of new technologies; and 

responsible law and policy, while safeguarding 

security and privacy. Mr. Greenspan previously 

was Deputy Commissioner with the New York State 

Division of Criminal Justice Services responsible 

for the operation of the State’s criminal records 

repository, provision of information technology 

services to the State’s justice agencies, and 

certification of police training. He is retired from 

the New York City Police Department, where he last 

served as Commanding Officer of the Identification 

Section.

Dr. Donald Orokos is a tenured faculty member 

at the State University of New York at Albany in 

the Department of Biology, where he teaches cell 

biology and immunology. Dr. Orokos also serves 

as the Associate Director of NERFI, and provides 

administrative oversight to all academic forensic 

programs.