DNA screening

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Saliva test

The DNA screening (also DNA screening , Mass tightness test , genetic mass test , series genetic testing , DNA mass screening ) is typically the detection of genetic fingerprints of persons belonging to a population group by a DNA analysis . To identify a perpetrator who has DNA traces, it can be carried out voluntarily or by order of a judge.

Legal basis

The legal basis for genetic screening in Germany is Section 81h of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), which came into force on November 1, 2005; however, extensive serial examinations were carried out beforehand without an express legal basis (for example in the case of Ronny Rieken ). The samples and the data obtained from them must be destroyed if they do not match the trace DNA; in particular, the data must not be saved in the DNA analysis file. However, the records of the DNA identification pattern only have to be deleted “immediately” “when they are no longer required to solve the crime”. Participation in such a genetic screening according to § 81h StPO is voluntary, no one can be forced to do so and no suspicion can be drawn from refusal to participate. The proceedings must be ordered by a judge.

Test refusal

People who have been asked by the police to voluntarily take part in a genetic screening but do not want to do so are usually referred to as test refusers.

The public prosecutor's office may not classify test refusers as suspects and thus as accused simply because they refused to participate. Otherwise, both the presumption of innocence and the rule of law would be violated. The Federal Constitutional Court also determined this in 1996:

“The refusal to take blood and the filing of a complaint with the assertion that the measure was unlawful as a 'mass manhunt' not directed against the accused should not have been regarded as an evidence substantiating or reinforcing the suspicion against the complainant; This arises from the general rule of law that the use of a legal remedy granted by law must not be made more difficult in an unreasonable way that can no longer be justified for factual reasons. "

- Federal Constitutional Court, decision of February 27, 1996, file number 2 BvR 200/91

criticism

Violation of informational self-determination

The criticism of this procedure is that, contrary to the presumption of innocence, citizens are asked to prove their innocence and that their fundamental right to informational self-determination is impaired.

The Federal Data Protection Commissioner Peter Schaar declared at the end of July 2006 that a mass genetic test, in which a large number of completely innocent people are involved, should not become a standard police measure. The deputy federal chairman of the Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter , Wilfried Albishausen, described Schaar's statements as "trickery" and accused him: "They unjustifiably unsettle the population and hinder effective prosecution for the safety of our citizens".

Reversal of the presumption of innocence

In practice, people who fit into the usually very wide search grid either "voluntarily" take part in the genetic test or are checked by the police for an alibi. If they cannot provide an absolutely secure alibi, initial suspicion is assumed and a decision of the local court for compulsory participation is applied for, which is usually approved. However, since there is no concrete suspicion of a crime against these persons , they are not accused and, according to Section 81c StPO, may only be examined under certain conditions with a judicial order without their consent. People who have been asked to participate but cannot be found will be put out to be searched.

There is no real voluntary nature of participation in the sense that, after being asked by the police to take part in the genetic test, one can freely decide whether to take part or not to take part. You only have the choice of either signing a declaration of voluntary participation and participating or showing an alibi. If you can't prove a secure alibi, you can expect to be treated as a suspect for a serious crime. It is therefore criticized that the express claim by the police and public prosecutor's office that participation in a screening is voluntary is a deception of the public, and that the threat of police (preliminary) investigations and a compulsory court order in the event that one does not Participates "voluntarily" is a coercion .

It is also criticized that the courts are often too generous in confirming an initial suspicion and that they interpret their discretion unilaterally in favor of the public prosecutor. It is problematic that the concept of initial suspicion in accordance with Section 152, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“sufficient factual evidence”) is only vaguely defined.

Critics also fear that the increasing number of genetic screening tests carried out on an ever larger scale and with coercive measures against uninvolved citizens could reduce citizens' trust in the police and the judiciary and turn into rejection.

The media are also criticized for presenting the question of the voluntary nature and the procedure of the tests unchecked and one-sided based on the statements of the police and public prosecutor's office. On the other hand, comparatively little is reported about the number and background of those who refused to test.

Lack of voluntariness in practice and pressure on those who refuse to investigate

In particular, involuntary behavior resulting from the practice of the authorities is often criticized. Since the participants for a genetic screening are selected on the basis of assumptions such as the suspected place of residence of the perpetrator, there is not even an initial suspicion against any of the intended participants. Nevertheless, these people are placed under a preliminary suspicion as "potential suspects" and must either prove their innocence or endure police investigations.

However, since an elaborate and expensive screening would not be very promising if every person asked to participate, in particular the wanted perpetrator, could simply refuse to participate without further consequences, the police and public prosecutor's office try in practice to exert pressure on those who refuse to test and to find grounds for suspicion get them to take a test.

During a genetic screening in Bochum (see examples), the police threatened to interrogate the accused in the event of a refusal to test: " If you do not agree with this measure, you can submit an alibi as part of an interrogation. “A case came to light where the police asked the employer for an alibi. Resolutions of the Bochum District Court were obtained against persons who did not provide a sufficiently secure alibi, which ordered a compulsory collection of a saliva sample according to § 81a StPO ("physical examination of the accused"), in case of resistance a blood sample instead. A suspicion was therefore assumed without further investigation, which was justified as follows: " According to the current state of the investigation, certain external characteristics, such as age, size, place of residence, movement pattern, location, where one of these general characteristics may be sufficient, towards the person concerned. "

During a genetic check-up in Dresden, the Dresden Public Prosecutor Christian Avenarius declared in July 2006 that no one would become a suspect if he refused to undergo the genetic test. Participation is absolutely voluntary. In such cases, however, one would take a closer look at the person and also check the person's environment. If this does not result in an initial suspicion, it will not be investigated.

In a genetic screening in Gütersloh (see examples), a total of almost 11,500 DNA samples were examined without success. The Bielefeld District Court issued resolutions on compulsory participation against 10 out of 27 men who did not voluntarily take part in the screening. These were later classified as illegal by the Bielefeld Regional Court. However, one of the men had already been forced to participate beforehand.

A decision by the local court to compulsorily participate in a genetic screening test can be lodged free of charge. The higher regional court has to decide on this. This must examine the individual grounds for suspicion more closely and decide whether there is an initial suspicion in accordance with Section 152 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“sufficient factual evidence”). In the opinion of some courts, to affirm this, it may be sufficient that one fits into the police's search grid (e.g. gender, place of residence, age, size).

High costs with dubious efficiency

Since in most cases it is not certain that the wanted perpetrator is among the intended test participants, the success of a genetic screening is also not certain. This results in the risk that, in the event of a negative test, attempts will be made to expand the group of participants several times in order to justify the high personnel and financial effort invested up to that point by a successful search. But even if the group of participants increases further, a successful search cannot be guaranteed, while the effort and thus the costs continue to rise and more and more innocent people are put under pressure to participate in order to prove their innocence. It is unclear where a line should ultimately be drawn for the group of participants.

Laboratory error

The risk of laboratory errors is greatly increased, especially with large numbers of DNA analyzes. The most frequent errors are mix-ups, incorrect labeling and reading errors of samples, which are completely independent of the reliability of the analysis method.

Uncertainty as evidence

The results of the screening are to be put into perspective as direct evidence: Statistically, the patterns created occur once in 100,000 people, i.e. several times in every larger city. This means that a further, more precise DNA analysis is necessary, which clearly proves that the trace found comes from a suspect.

Wrong tracks

DNA traces can get to the crime scene in a variety of ways; traces of others can even be deliberately placed by the perpetrator in order to incriminate an innocent person. It can generally be the case that traces found do not come from the perpetrator at all. During the genetic screening in the northern Saarland of November 2009 described in the examples, a search was made for a letter writer who, however, did not belong to the group of participants, was finally identified by a witness reference, but was not the perpetrator.

Aggravation indeed

There is also a risk that the increasing use of DNA analysis as a search tool could induce criminals to destroy any traces of DNA, for example by setting the crime scene on fire and thereby making the crime worse.

Risk of data abuse

The question of whether the genetic data of a large number of citizens, which are determined in the course of genetic series examinations with high personnel and financial expense, is actually irrevocably deleted or perhaps used in another way is also viewed critically. Because of the high value of the data, there is a risk that desires arise and the data could be misused.

It cannot be ruled out in principle that the data could be spied on, for example, by our own or third-party secret services . The desire could also arise not to delete the data that was determined with great effort, but to keep it officially or unofficially for the purpose of investigating other crimes.

A comprehensive database with genetic fingerprints of all citizens also carries the risk that instead of conventional evidence, DNA traces at crime scenes are preferably used to investigate the perpetrators. However, traces of DNA can get to any crime scene without being involved in the crime, and can basically be placed on purpose.

Dealing with "near hits"

The handling of "near hits" remained unexplained for a long time: In a serial investigation after a rape in Dörpen / Emsland in July 2010, two men found similarities to the perpetrator DNA did not fall into the police grid at all because he was only 16 years old. Upon collection, the examined men were assured that their sample would only be used to verify their possible perpetration. The Osnabrück district court assumed that the evidence obtained in this way could be used - and sentenced to five years in prison. The Federal Court of Justice later confirmed this. A constitutional complaint was filed against this, which the Federal Constitutional Court did not accept for decision.

The examination of DNA samples for near hits in series examinations was expressly permitted in Germany in 2017 through an amendment to Section 81h of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the rapid legislative procedure. The recycling that is now permitted is deliberately used in more recent series examinations.

Scientific investigations

One of the largest series of DNA tests for scientific purposes that go far beyond fragment length analysis is the investigation of the gene pool of the population of Iceland . The results were acquired in February 1998 by Hoffmann-La Roche from deCODE Genetics for US $ 200 million .

In 2007, anthropologists from the University of Göttingen examined the DNA of 300 residents of the Osterode district in order to compare it with the genetic material of around 40 skeletons that were found in 1993 in the Lichtenstein cave near Förste and are around 3000 years old.

Examples

Germany

  • 1994: The world's first successful DNA screening on 1889 male people from Hesse , in the Darmstadt and Babenhausen area, in connection with the murder of the then 3-year-old Elora McKemy. A US soldier stationed in Hesse was convicted at the time, who was later sentenced by a military court to life imprisonment (3 times 50 years) for kidnapping, rape and murder of Elora.
  • 1997: Investigation of 750 owners of a Porsche in Munich to investigate a murder case. The admissibility of the investigation was confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court. However, no Porsche driver was the perpetrator: In 2003 the husband of the cleaning lady of the victim was convicted.
  • March 1998: Examination of 16,000 men between the ages of 18 and 30 in Lower Saxony . This cleared up the sex murder of an 11-year-old girl in Lorup .
  • Autumn 2000: after the murder of the eleven-year-old student Tobias D. in Weil im Schönbuch , 12,400 saliva samples were taken. The perpetrator was not found. In 2011, the police arrested a confessed suspect whom they had tracked down while researching child pornography on the Internet. DNA traces finally convicted him as the perpetrator.
  • 2002: Around 1,300 young women were invited by the Regensburg public prosecutor's office to take part in a genetic screening to investigate the death of a newborn girl who was found dead in the Main-Danube Canal near Essing in Lower Bavaria in the summer of 2000. This was the first criminal DNA screening of women in Germany. The majority of women volunteered to take part in the investigation; However, the crime could not be cleared up as a result. The Regensburg public prosecutor obtained compulsory orders from the local court against twelve women who did not want to participate voluntarily. On the other hand, three women successfully appealed to the regional court. According to the Regional Court of Regensburg, it is not sufficient for an initial suspicion that the women were of a certain age at the time of the crime and lived near the place where the baby's body was found. In addition, the women were able to submit further documents that spoke against the perpetrator. According to a medical certificate, one of the women was still a virgin. After this decision by the Regional Court of Regensburg, the public prosecutor did not enforce the decisions of the local court against the nine other women.
  • Autumn 2002: On the night of August 11, 2002, 38-year-old Gudrun Wudy was murdered in her house in Poing, Bavaria. At the end of September, all men (approx. 1,500) living in Poing were asked to take part in a genetic screening. The police said that taking part in the saliva test does not mean that you are considered a suspect or accused. Nevertheless, 14 people who did not want to voluntarily take part in the DNA screening were forced to participate by a court order, for which there must be at least an initial suspicion. The number of samples was increased to 2,300. The result was negative. In March 2003, the screening was extended to all men between the ages of 14 and 45 who lived within a five-kilometer radius of the crime scene (approx. 10,000), as the police were certain that the perpetrator had a very good knowledge of the area “Am Bergfeld” development area and comes from the vicinity of the dead. This screening test was also negative. The perpetrator was finally caught in October 2003 because he had filmed the crime, his ex-girlfriend saw the video and reported him to the police after a long period of reflection. He lived in Munich, had no connection with the victim and, according to experts, was seriously disturbed mentally.
  • September 2003: Investigation of 10,000 men in the Querenburg district of Bochum and 600 men in Sprockhövel to investigate 20 rapes between January 1994 and July 2002 in Sprockhövel, Bochum, Witten and Dortmund. The perpetrator has not been identified.
  • November 2004: Since April 6, 2004, nine letter bombs have been sent in Bavaria, one of which detonated and slightly injured a secretary. The other letter bombs did not go off. The police initially suspected that the perpetrator was a man between the ages of 40 and 60 from the Passau area and collected around 1,600 saliva samples between April and November as part of a voluntary DNA screening. 28 men who did not want to give a saliva sample were to be forcibly removed due to court orders. After these investigations were unsuccessful and DNA traces on the envelope of the sixth letter bomb matched DNA traces from a break-in into an inn in Hutthurm two years ago , all 2300 men between the ages of 16 and 70 from the Hutthurm area were removed from the Kripo suspected and invited to a second screening. "If you don't come, the police will visit you again," said the LKA spokesman. Everyone has the right to refuse to take saliva, but a court order can then be expected. On November 26, 2004, 22-year-old Johann Lang from the Hutthurm district of Ramling blew himself up in a field with a self-made bomb. He died instantly. He had received an invitation to voluntarily participate in the screening and was supposed to give a saliva sample that day. A DNA sample taken from the corpse proved that it was the wanted assassin. The DNA screening was then immediately discontinued.
  • June 2006: Investigation of up to 100,000 male people between the ages of 25 and 45 between Coswig and Dresden to investigate the rape of two underage girls (September 6, 2005, January 10, 2006). It is the largest mass investigation in German criminal history. The mass investigation was inconclusive. Almost two years later (June 18, 2008) the alleged rapist was arrested for classic police work. The traces leading to him were all known before the start of the mass test, but were only evaluated afterwards.
  • April 2007: Investigation in Velbert on 580 male people between the ages of 20 and 60 who were members of a specific fitness studio within a certain period of time. The aim was to solve a murder crime. Voluntary participation in the study was initially relatively low. Thereupon the police announced that they would make the people who had not yet given a saliva sample "a renewed offer to voluntarily submit a saliva sample so that they do not remain in the narrow focus of further police investigations." 700 saliva samples evaluated. The perpetrator could not be identified.
  • July 2008: More than 500 tests were carried out in Hattingen-Blankenstein to investigate the murder of 35-year-old Jennifer Schlicht , which took place around May 17, 2005, and more followed. The DNA comparisons among the 500 men between 16 and 75 years from the Blankensteiner area and among friends were unsuccessful. The crime was cleared up in September 2011 when the same DNA trace of the perpetrator was found in three break-ins. The perpetrator was sentenced to 13 years in prison for manslaughter in April 2012.
  • August 2008: Investigation in Heinsberg on 1,100 male persons between the ages of 16 and 60 who live in the vicinity of Randerath , Horst and Porselen . The aim was to solve a murder crime; the result is still pending. Voluntary participation in the study was initially relatively high.
  • November 2008: In northern Saarland , the police started the largest genetic screening that has so far been carried out in this state in order to convict the so-called "high forest murderer". The investigators wanted to find the man who killed the then 13-year-old student Lydia Schürmann near Bielefeld in 1962 and the prostitute Heiderose Berchner in the Ulm area in 1970. Six anonymous, partly handwritten letters to the press and the police, on which DNA traces and fingerprints were found, led the investigators to the northern Saarland. 5000 men aged 65 and over who lived in the area were asked to voluntarily provide a saliva sample for a DNA test as well as their fingerprints. The DNA screening was unsuccessful. However, through the tip of a postman, a 34-year-old mentally ill man was identified who had written the letters. He did not belong to the target group of the screening and had acquired knowledge of the murders from the press. Because of his age, he had to be excluded as a perpetrator.
  • January 2009: In the Ludwigsburg district , traffic checks were routinely asked for voluntary submission of the genetic fingerprint. The genetic test using a saliva sample at traffic controls was intended to be used for the search in the case of the police murder in Heilbronn . In March 2009 it turned out that cotton swabs, which were used in the forensic investigation, were contaminated and the phantom murderess did not exist in this form. The act could later be assigned to the National Socialist Underground (NSU).
  • July 2009: The police union opposes the collection of DNA from police officers. They should submit their genetic fingerprint to the area of ​​responsibility of the Duisburg Police Headquarters, so that traces of the perpetrators can be separated from the investigators' traces at crime scenes from the start.
  • September 2009: In Gütersloh, the police ultimately unsuccessfully carried out a genetic screening on a total of around 11,500 men to investigate the murder of a 67-year-old woman. Decisions on compulsory participation were passed by the Bielefeld District Court against 10 out of 27 men who did not voluntarily take part in the DNA screening. These were later classified as illegal by the Bielefeld Regional Court. One of the men was forced to participate beforehand. Because of his resistance to the illegal measure, he was sentenced by the Bielefeld District Court to a warning with punishment reserved. His lawyer filed charges against the public prosecutor, who requested compulsory participation in the screening, for persecuting innocent people, and against the district judge who approved her, for perversion of justice.
  • March to May 2011: In the course of the investigation into the finds of two infant corpses in Schwarzenberg / Erzgeb. and Rotava , DNA samples were collected from over 1500 women. The test did not reveal any evidence of those involved in the crime (as of August 2012).
  • July 2013: The Munich criminal police started a genetic screening to track down the murderer who murdered a cyclist on May 28, 2013 on Erhardstrasse in Munich. All persons who can be assigned to mobile phones who were logged into the corresponding radio cells at the time of the crime are examined. Anyone who refuses to "voluntarily" submit the genetic fingerprint must then expect a compulsory decision against which an objection can be lodged. The offense has not yet been resolved.
  • February 2014: More than 3000 men were asked for a DNA screening in Neresheim from February 14th . The investigators in the murder case Maria Bögerl hoped to gain new knowledge and investigative approaches.

Great Britain

In addition to the result of a DNA test, it must be accompanied by a description of the origin of the sample and its removal. The judge ensures that the jury is aware of the significance of the results of the screening and that the probability of agreement does not necessarily match the probability of the perpetrator. The Human Tissue Act 2004 prohibits individuals from collecting samples for DNA analysis, with the exception of medical and criminological examinations.

United States

Goods analysis at the US border protection .

Corresponding laws exist in all 50 states of the USA. Detailed information can be found on the website of the National Conference of State Legislatures . The police are allowed to take DNA samples without the suspect's knowledge. The legality of this practice has been the subject of controversy in Australia . Courts in the USA ruled legality based on the precedent California v. Greenwood in 1985, while critics cite the lack of public awareness of DNA leaving behind. The Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v. Kingam in 2013 that it was lawful to take samples from detainees if they had committed serious crimes.

literature

  • Thomas Hombert: The voluntary genetic mass test - constitutional admissibility and limits with a presentation of the Christina Nytsch case. 2003, ISBN 3-89873-819-1

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ BGH 3 StR 117/12 - judgment of December 20, 2012, para. 11.
  2. ^ Federal Constitutional Court, decision of February 27, 1996, file number 2 BvR 200/91, printed in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1996, page 1587; New Journal for Criminal Law 1996, page 345; Defense Attorney 1996, p. 353; online at jurathek.de ( Memento from March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ).
  3. ↑ Netzeitung, July 31, 2006: Dispute over mass genetic tests ( Memento of April 22, 2008 in the Internet Archive ), accessed July 9, 2012
  4. ↑ heise.de , August 1, 2006: Detective officers criticize statements by the Federal Data Protection Agency on mass genetic tests , accessed July 9, 2012
  5. ↑ Judge Bettina Grengel: “From refuser to suspect”. Südwestpresse, June 24, 2015, accessed on January 11, 2016 .
  6. ↑ taz No. 7126, August 9, 2003, page 7: Genetic test with too many suspects , accessed July 9, 2012
  7. ^ FAZ, July 15, 2006: Mass gene test in Saxony , accessed July 9, 2012
  8. ↑ mdr, November 5, 2017: Public prosecutor's office is considering second DNA mass test ( memento of November 5, 2017 in the Internet Archive ), accessed November 5, 2017
  9. ↑ Crime: mass genetic test convicts 17-year-old rapist - news panorama - world events - DIE WELT .
  10. ↑ BGH 3 StR 117/12 - judgment of December 20, 2012.
  11. ↑ The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) calls lto.de on April 5, 2013, accessed on February 27, 2015.
  12. ↑ BVerfG 2 BvR 616/13 - decision of May 13, 2015.
  13. ↑ September 17, 2018: Response of the Federal Government to a small inquiry on so-called DNA Familial Searching , accessed on August 23, 2020.
  14. ↑ November 15, 2019: DNA mass test to expose Claudia Ruf's murderer Süddeutsche Zeitung. Retrieved August 23, 2020.
  15. ↑ Spiegel, February 11, 2007: A city is looking for its great-grandpa , accessed July 9, 2012
  16. ↑ HR Schneider: World's largest DNA series investigation clears up the murder of two-year-olds . Ed .: Hessische Polizeirundschau. No. 10 , 1995, p. 05-07 .
  17. ↑ Frankfurter Rundschau Online, July 17, 2006: Ursula Knapp: A rejected saliva sample does not make a suspicion .
  18. ↑ Stuttgarter Nachrichten, August 25, 2011: Suspect admits Tobias ' murder , accessed July 9, 2012
  19. ↑ Claudia Becker: Arrest: Tobias' murderer gossips in front of the police. In: Welt Online . August 25, 2011. Retrieved February 12, 2017 .
  20. ↑ aol-Newsbote, February 14, 2003: Court declares compulsory mass genetic testing inadmissible (GeNPost, protected) ( Memento of March 11, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  21. ↑ Merkur online, September 13, 2002: Wudy murder case: 1500 men for a saliva test , (July 9, 2012)
  22. ↑ Merkur online, September 13, 2002: Saliva test: A man is missing , link no longer available (July 9, 2012)
  23. ↑ Merkur online, March 18, 2003: Second saliva test in the Wudy case , link no longer available (July 9, 2012)
  24. ^ BR online, October 27, 2004: Defendant makes partial confession. ( Memento from November 2, 2004 in the Internet Archive )
  25. ↑ a b c BR online, November 26, 2004: Letter bomb attacker ( memento of November 26, 2004 in the Internet Archive ).
  26. ↑ a b Die Welt, November 26, 2004: An entire village is under suspicion , accessed July 9, 2012
  27. ^ Die Welt, November 11, 2004: Letter bomb series in Bavaria continues , accessed July 9, 2012
  28. ↑ Frankfurter Allgemeine, November 26, 2004: DNA mass test to clarify letter bomb attacks
  29. ^ Die Welt, November 27, 2004: Letter bomber blew itself up , accessed July 9, 2012
  30. ↑ Rheinische Post online, April 19, 2007: Hardly any response to DNA test after murder. , accessed July 9, 2012
  31. ^ RP online, April 24, 2007: Murder of a stewardess: Police go on the offensive. , accessed July 9, 2012
  32. ↑ newsline Westdeutsche Zeitung, October 21, 2011: Murderer remains at large , accessed July 9, 2012
  33. ↑ WAZ , July 14, 2008: Jenny murder files reopened ( Memento from September 24, 2015 in the Internet Archive )
  34. ↑ WDR: Woman murder well cleared up after years: alleged perpetrator makes confession ( Memento from October 22, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
  35. ↑ WAZ , April 20, 2012: 13 years imprisonment for the perpetrator in the Jenny Schlicht case , accessed July 9, 2012
  36. ↑ Rheinische Post online, August 2, 2008: mass genetic test after female murder , accessed July 9, 2012
  37. ↑ Saarbrücker Zeitung of November 6, 2008: Police start mass genetic test in the high forest  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.saarbruecker-zeitung.de
  38. ↑ Lawgical of November 21, 2008: Letter writer captured - Hochwaldmörder not determined ( Memento from July 4, 2017 in the Internet Archive ), accessed July 9, 2012
  39. ↑ Ludwigsburger Kreiszeitung from January 5, 2009: Roadside genetic testing is becoming routine ( Memento from March 24, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
  40. ↑ Spiegel Online from March 26, 2009: A very embarrassing story , accessed July 9, 2012
  41. ^ Announcement of the GdP district group Duisburg from July 10th, 2009: Voluntary surrender of the DNA by police officers? ( Memento of October 2, 2015 in the Internet Archive ), accessed July 9, 2012
  42. ↑ Gen-ethical network: DNA collecting mania in Gütersloh ( Memento from March 7, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
  43. ↑ The bell: saliva refusers (59) warned
  44. ↑ Dead baby in Schwarzenberg: Genetic tests should be evaluated by the end of May - Central Germany - Police ticker - LVZ-Online . LVZ website online. Retrieved August 12, 2012.
  45. ↑ Dead babies from Schwarzenberg and Rotava are siblings ( memento from February 11, 2013 in the web archive archive.today ). Website mdr.de. Retrieved August 12, 2012.
  46. ↑ Who is Domenico L.'s murderer? Still not cleared up: Isar murder is celebrating its anniversary website tz.de, accessed on February 26, 2018.
  47. ↑ DNA mass test starts today: the most important questions and answers . Schwäbische Post website. Retrieved February 15, 2014.
  48. ↑ R v. Loveridge, reporter = EWCA Crim, opinion = 734, year = 2001.
  49. ↑ R v. Doheny, court = EWCA, year = 1996, num = 728, parallelcite = [1997] 1 Cr App R 369, date = 31 July 1996, courtname = Court of Appeal .
  50. ↑ R v. Adams, court = EWCA, year = 1997, num = 2474, date = 16 October 1997, courtname = Court of Appeal .
  51. ↑ Human Tissue Act 2004 ( Memento of August 1, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ), UK, available in pdf.
  52. ↑ Genelex: The DNA Paternity Testing Site . Healthanddna.com. January 6, 1996. Archived from the original on December 29, 2010. Retrieved on April 3, 2010.
  53. ↑ Donna Lyons - Posted by Glenda: State Laws on DNA Data Banks . Ncsl.org. February 2010. Archived from the original on September 29, 2011. Retrieved on April 3, 2010.
  54. ^ Amy Harmon , Lawyers Fight DNA Samples Gained on Sly , New York Times , April 3, 2008.
  55. ↑ US Supreme Court allows DNA sampling of prisoners . UPI. Retrieved June 3, 2013.
  56. ↑ US Supreme Court: 12-207 Maryland v. King (06/03/2013) , accessed January 10, 2014.