The Seattle Police Department (SPD) stands accused of operating a clandestine and potentially unlawful operation to harvest the genetic material of its citizens, sparking a major civil liberties battle.
A scathing lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington, alleges that police detectives systematically collected DNA from at least 150 people, often without their knowledge or consent, and frequently in the absence of any criminal charges.
A Pattern of Targeting Vulnerable Communities
Shockingly, the suit claims that a disproportionate number of those targeted were Native American. One plaintiff, a Native American woman from the Blackfeet Nation, had her DNA taken after being questioned about a crime she was not suspected of committing. This has raised serious concerns about racial profiling and the exploitation of marginalised groups.
The ACLU argues that this practice effectively creates a "shadow DNA database," operating outside the regulated state system and devoid of the legal safeguards designed to protect citizen privacy and prevent misuse.
'Dystopian' and 'Unconstitutional' Practices
The methods described in the lawsuit are stark. Officers allegedly used ruses to obtain DNA, such as offering gum, water, or cigarettes during interviews and then seizing the items for genetic testing once the person had left.
"It is a dystopian and unconstitutional practice that must be stopped," stated a legal representative for the plaintiffs. This covert collection violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and undermines fundamental privacy rights.
Legal Demands and Departmental Response
The lawsuit demands a complete overhaul of SPD's policies. It calls for the immediate destruction of all unlawfully collected DNA profiles and a court order to permanently ban the force from engaging in these deceptive evidence-gathering tactics.
In response, the Seattle Police Department has stated it is reviewing the allegations and is committed to complying with all laws and regulations. The case promises to set a significant precedent for police powers and genetic privacy in the digital age.
