Just a year and a half after Bronx investigators used familial DNA for the first time to arrest a man for the 1999 rape and murder of a 13-year-old girl, an appeals court halted the use of the technique.
On Thursday, a panel of judges on a mid-level New York appeals court ruled that regulations for the technique were invalid because a state committee implemented them without consent from the state legislature.
New York state’s DNA databank has been in use since 1994, but the state legislature only allowed the collection and searching of samples from those convicted of crimes. In 2010, the state authorized the release of partial-match information to law enforcement, but not the technique of searching specifically for relatives of people in the databank.
In the years since—and as forensic genetic genealogy proved its worth—New York state legislators debated expanding the use of the database for familial searching, but ultimately did not pass legislation. That led the Division of Criminal Justice Services and the Commission on Forensic Science to step in, voting to allow familial DNA searches in violent crimes like murder and rape, as well as times when it could help exonerate the wrongfully convicted or identify a John/Jane Doe.
As a result, the Legal Aid Society, a non-profit organization representing indigent defendants in New York City, sued the state in February 2018, arguing that the Division of Criminal Justice Services had no authority to expand use of the DNA databank.
According to the Associated Press, the law was challenged by a group of Black men who argued they could be unfairly targeted for investigation because their biological brothers were convicted of crimes and had DNA stored in the state database. The lawsuit contends that people of color face a higher risk of being investigated through familial DNA searching because the majority of DNA information in the state’s databank is from people of color.
Thursday’s appeals court decision supports this argument.
The NYPD and their use of the DNA database is at the heart of another lawsuit from the Legal Aid Society. Filed in March 2022, the Legal Aid Society alleges the department has been unconstitutionally collecting and storing DNA from thousands of New Yorkers—and then using it to surveil Black and Latinx communities.
“For decades, the NYPD has used dishonest tactics to obtain New Yorkers’ DNA, including those as young as 11-years-old, by offering bottles of water or cigarettes to our clients detained at local precincts,” said the Legal Aid Society in a Facebook post. “These New Yorkers’ samples are then permanently stored in a rogue local database, in violation of existing law.”
Since adopting the familial DNA technique, New York has approved just 30 applications from law enforcement to conduct searches. According to the Associated Press, it has disclosed the names of matches to police in 10 cases, two of which resulted in arrests, including Joseph Martinez, who was arrested in November 2021 for the rape and murder of 13-year-old Minerliz Soriano.
In April 2019, the NYPD and the Bronx District Attorney’s Office petitioned to use the familial DNA system on a DNA sample obtained from a semen stain on Soriano’s sweatshirt. The petition was granted, and the sample was submitted to the New York State convicted offender DNA database. The information led to Martinez’s father, who is deceased. Investigators then obtained a DNA sample from the accused, which matched the DNA found on the victim’s sweatshirt.
Martinez, now 50-years-old, was Soriano’s neighbor. He was a local astronomer known in the neighborhood as "Jupiter Joe,” as he offered adults and children free lessons about the solar system. Police interviewed Martinez in 1999, but he was never considered a suspect. He maintains his innocence.
The appeals court ruling on familial DNA pertains only to the use of New York state’s DNA databank, not those maintained by private companies such as GEDmatch, Ancestry and 23andMe, which are often used for forensic genetic genealogy purposes.
On Thursday, Janine Kava, a spokesperson for the Division of Criminal Justice Services, told the Associated Press that the agency is reviewing the appeals court decision to determine next steps—which could include bringing the matter to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.
MICHAEL R. SISAK of the Associated Press contributed to this report.