Broken rules, broken justice: The DNA evidence problem

I still remember the shock I felt when, as San Francisco's district attorney, I discovered the police crime lab was using DNA from child and sexual assault victims to investigate unrelated crimes. This wasn't just a violation of privacy -- it was a betrayal of victims who had come forward seeking justice, only to have their genetic information weaponized against them.

Today, I'm experiencing that same sense of alarm as reports emerge that the FBI may have violated Department of Justice policies in the high-profile Idaho student murder case by improperly using DNA databases. Once again, we see law enforcement agencies circumventing rules to solve high-profile cases.

While we all desire swift justice, particularly in horrific cases like the Idaho murders, allowing government agencies to operate above the law creates dangerous precedents that undermine rather than advance justice. These shortcuts don't just violate civil liberties; they threaten the integrity of prosecutions, undermine public trust, and ultimately make our communities less safe.

The New York Times reports that FBI investigators potentially violated key DOJ policies requiring them to use only DNA databases that explicitly notify contributors that law enforcement may access their data. This isn't a mere technicality - it's a fundamental breach of trust between citizens and the institutions meant to protect them. Such violations risk having otherwise strong cases dismissed in court, letting genuine perpetrators walk free while permanently damaging public confidence in the wake of one of the nation's most horrific murder cases in recent years.

After we uncovered similar abuses in San Francisco, we took immediate action because a rape victim seeking medical care and justice should never have to worry that their DNA might later be weaponized against them by the very system meant to protect them. Working with rape crisis centers and victims' advocates, we sponsored legislation that Senator Scott Wiener carried to unanimous success in Sacramento. Senate Bill 1228 now explicitly prohibits DNA profiles collected from sexual assault survivors from being used for any purpose other than identifying their assailant. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed similar local protections.

The statistics tell a grim story: according to the Department of Justice, approximately two-thirds of sexual assault victims already don't report their attacks to police. Each breach of trust pushes that number higher. When victims stop reporting crimes, when society fails to invest in upstream prevention, and when law enforcement behaves as if it is above the law, perpetrators remain free to harm others, creating a devastating cycle that makes communities less safe, not more.

And the costs extend beyond public safety. The victims whose DNA was misused by the San Francisco Police Department filed a class action lawsuit against the city - a perfectly justified response that nonetheless diverts millions of taxpayer dollars to litigation that could have been avoided had the department simply followed the law. These lawsuits reflect real harm to real people and create significant financial liability for cities and agencies that fail to respect privacy rights.

To be sure, law enforcement agencies face immense pressure to solve crimes. Modern DNA technology offers unprecedented opportunities to identify perpetrators who might otherwise remain anonymous. The Idaho case itself demonstrates the power of these tools - they helped catch a suspect who might never have been identified through traditional investigative methods. Supporters of expanded DNA use argue that solving violent crimes justifies pushing procedural boundaries. They argue that technical compliance with database notification requirements should take a back seat to catching killers. I understand the emotional appeal of this argument - I've sat with countless crime victims and their families who desperately want closure and justice.

But this argument fundamentally misunderstands how our justice system functions. Evidence collected improperly often gets excluded at trial, potentially allowing guilty defendants to go free. The Idaho case itself now faces unnecessary obstacles, with defense attorneys challenging evidence based on the FBI's investigative methods. Should Kohberger escape conviction or his conviction be reversed on appeal because evidence was obtained improperly, the families of four murdered students would be victimized all over again - simply because law enforcement couldn't be bothered to follow its own rules.

Throughout American history, when agencies operate without proper constraints, abuses invariably follow, typically harming the most vulnerable communities first. The rules that govern evidence collection exist precisely because experience has taught us that without them, the powerful will inevitably overreach.

In our increasingly surveilled society, DNA databases represent one of the most intimate forms of personal information collection. If citizens cannot trust the government to follow its own rules regarding such sensitive data, why would they trust it in other areas? This erosion of trust weakens the foundations of our democratic institutions.

As a prosecutor, I saw firsthand that sustainable public safety requires community trust. When people believe the system treats them fairly, they report crimes, cooperate with investigations, and serve as witnesses. When that trust erodes, so does our ability to deliver justice through the courts.

Law enforcement agencies must recognize that following established rules isn't an impediment to justice - it's essential to achieving it. Transparent protocols, proper oversight, and accountability when violations occur are not luxuries but necessities in a functioning justice system. Are we willing to sacrifice our civil liberties and the integrity of our justice system for the illusion of security? Or will we demand that those enforcing our laws be equally bound by them?

The answer to these questions will determine not just the outcome of high-profile cases like the Idaho murders, but the kind of society we choose to live in. When law enforcement breaks its own rules, the damage extends far beyond any single investigation  - it breaks the trust that makes justice possible in the first place.