Investigative genetic genealogy

 

There are more uses to investigative forensic genealogy than cold cases or cases otherwise deemed "unsolvable" by law enforcement. Natural disasters such as floods, wildfires, earthquakes are all prime examples of scenarios where gene-matching can be utilized.^[13] In instances where the body is unidentifiable by standard means, such as facial recognition or dental records, genetic technology can be used.^[14]

A number of living doe situations have also been solved this way. There is push to provide more resources for DNA to be offered when there is a need to identify a child who has been trafficked, or an adult who was trafficked at a young age.^[15]

Agencies that fall under the US Department of Justice, who have jurisdiction on the case(s) and/or person(s), can utilize forensic genetic genealogical DNA analysis and searching, FGGS for short. There are specific rules they must follow in order to use the system.^[16]

The use of investigative genetic genealogy has been central in numerous high-profile cases, namely in the identification and ultimate arrest of Joseph DeAngelo, the Golden State Killer.^[7] Despite its apparent success, the growing use of genetic genealogy databases by law enforcement agencies has not avoided serious scrutiny. A year prior to the arrest of DeAngelo, an individual was wrongly identified as a suspect in the murder of Angie Dodge, an 18-year-old woman who was the victim of a 1996 murder in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Michael Usry was the subject of a police investigation that led to a court order requiring Ancestry.com to disclose the identity of a partial match to crime scene DNA.^[17] This partial match was Usry, who was ultimately cleared as a suspect after police secured a warrant for his DNA. This DNA test proved that he was not a full match to the perpetrator.

The use of genetic genealogy databases by investigators has initiated a debate over the Fourth Amendment implications of genealogy data. The Fourth Amendment states that a warrant is required in situations that violate an individual's reasonable expectations of privacy.^[18] Given the sensitivity of information within direct-to-consumer genealogy databases, particularly concerning medical traits, behavioral tendencies, ethnic background, and familial associations, courts have asserted that they are subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment.^{[19][examples needed]}

Currently, direct-to-consumer companies do not promise complete protection of user data. 23andMe, a leading consumer genealogy company, states in its privacy policy that “23andMe will preserve and disclose any and all information to law enforcement agencies or others if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to…comply with legal or regulatory process”.^[20]

In an effort to remain transparent to its consumers, 23andMe has a quarterly Transparency Report. This report identifies the number of government requests for user data in addition to the number of times data has been produced without the explicit consent of the individual(s) of interest. 23andMe claims to have never produced user data without consent.^[21] The other industry leader, Ancestry.com, takes an analogous stance on the privacy of user data and similarly provides an annual transparency report.^[22]

The direct-to-consumer genealogy company FamilyTreeDNA faced a backlash following an admission that they were working secretly with the FBI. This partnership was initiated in 2018 and had the goal of solving cold cases involving murder and rape.^[23] Following scrutiny, FamilyTreeDNA's president Bennett Greenspan apologized for a lack of transparency, stating "I am genuinely sorry for not having handled our communications with you as we should have".^[23]

Privacy implications pertaining to public databases like GEDMatch are distinct from direct-to-consumer companies. As users voluntarily upload their genealogy profiles to GEDMatch, they forfeit their privacy to the data. The third-party doctrine, originally established by the US Supreme Court, states that a person “has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information…voluntarily turn[ed] over to third parties”.^[24] However, following intense media attention after the arrest of the Golden State Killer, GEDMatch changed their terms of service to require individuals to opt into use of their profiles by third parties.^[25] In effect, privacy rights were shifted back into the hands of the users.

The US government's own Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database is composed of forensic evidence assessable to local, state, and federal law enforcement officials. This database consists of genetic profiles of approximately 18 million different people, however these are limited to DNA samples from convicted felons and arrestees.^[26] Data on the racial distribution of profiles suggests that 8.6% of the entire African American population is present in the database compared to only 2% of the white population.^[19]

On the other hand, genetic profiles from direct-to-consumer databases and GEDMatch consist of 75% white individuals from Northern European descent.^[5] The vast overrepresentation of African American individuals within the CODIS database has rendered it relatively ineffective for solving serial murder and sexual assault cases, of which the majority of perpetrators are white. Based on data from 4,700 mass murderers, 57% of serial killers are white whereas only 29% are African American.^[27] It has been suggested that the use of investigative genetic genealogy, which relies heavily on databases like GEDMatch, would therefore help to reduce racial disparities in the current criminal justice system. However, in practice it has been found that the majority of victims identified through this technique were white.^[28]

The world's first Investigative Genetic Genealogy Center was launched at the Ramapo College of New Jersey in December of 2022. The center offers student workshops, certificate programs, and bootcamps for interested practitioners around the world.^[29] The center is led by David Gurney and Cairenn Binder.^[30]

Public genealogy databases known to have been used in IGG:

• FamilyTreeDNA
• GEDMatch
• MyHeritage

Genetic genealogy laboratories known to assist with IGG:

• DNA Solutions, Inc.
• Othram, Inc.
• Parabon NanoLabs