TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE........................................................................................2

II. FACTS OF THE CASE.....................................................................................................4

III. ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE...................................................................................5

1. Whether DeAngelo was wrongly incriminated.........................................................5

1.1. Wrongful Incrimination.........................................................................................5
1.2. Privacy...................................................................................................................6

2. Whether the investigation in this case ‘unreasonable’ and therefore, fourth

amendment can be invoked.................................................................................................6

IV. ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PARTIES........................................................................6

1. Contentions Advanced by the Prosecution................................................................6

2. Contentions Advanced by the Defense.......................................................................7

V. ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................................7

1. DNA Analysis (Phase 1): Tracing the Chain of Events of the Suspects..................9
A. Collection of Biological Evidence.............................................................................9
B. Generation of STR Profiles by the Crime Lab.........................................................10
C. Search of the STR Profile through NDIS/CODIS...................................................10

2. Genealogy (Phase 2): The Construction of Family Trees.......................................11

A. Basics of Genealogy.................................................................................................11
B. Generation of SNP Profile.......................................................................................11
C. Use of Genealogy Databases....................................................................................12
D. Construction of Family Trees..................................................................................13

3. Investigation (Phase III): How Genealogical Investigation is pertinent to the

Golden State Killer case?..................................................................................................13

4. Critical Concerns in DNA and Genealogy vis-à-vis Forensic Science...................14

A. Genetic Privacy........................................................................................................15
B. Legality of DNA Analysis in Indian Legal System.................................................15

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................16

 GOLDEN STATE KILLER CASE: DEMYSTIFYING THE INTRICACIES
BEHIND FORENSIC SCIENCE

With transition of time, a new period of criminal investigation has emerged, where forensic
science is being used in order to resolve the conflicted and debated cold cases such as the
Ted Bundy case. While various cases have demonstrated the efficaciousness of forensic
science, DNA study, genealogy, among other personal tenets; none of them deciphers on the
said aspects as much as the trial of Joseph James DeAngelo, which is akin to the Golden
State Killer case. The realm of the case, as will be demonstrated in this report, are not
restricted to the novel genetic search competency or how health and DNA plays a pertinent
role, but also a variety of ethical and legal concerns. This article, through the decision of the
Golden State Killer, highlights the concerns pertaining to the DNA analysis, genealogy, and
investigation. Correspondingly, certain recommendations are posed for making the regime of
such forensic determination much stronger.

I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

“It was not stakeouts or fingerprints or cell phone records that got him. It was a genealogy
website”1

In the history of the United States, the “Golden State Killer” aka Joseph James DeAngelo
(“DeAngelo”) has been regarded among the most insidious and deceptive serial killers who
have been hunted for decades. In the phase of 1974–1986, DeAngelo hopped throughout the
state of California. Therein, he is attributed by different names. For example, the “Original
Night Stalker”, the “Visalia Ransacker”, and others. 2 Interestingly, despite repeated attacks
and a progressive, yet menacing, criminal career, DeAngelo could not be arrested by the
officers of law enforcement in the United States particularly. This is because he made sure
that the criminal acts are performed via: one, calculated acts; two, meticulousness i.e., to
leave no traces; and three, by performing deliberate attacks.3

1
Megan Molteni, The Creepy Genetics Behind the Golden State Killer Case, WIRED (5 April 2018), available at:
https://www.wired.com/story/detectives-cracked-the-golden-state-killer-case-using-genetics/ (last accessed
11 May 2021).
2
See for the detailed registry of names, Avi Selk, The Most Disturbing Parts of the 171-Page Warrant for the
Golden State Killer Suspect, WASHINGTON POST (2018).
3
Id.

1
Following his skill of eluding the apprehension, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, along
with the local agencies of law such as police, announced a reward of $50,000 to anyone who
aids in capturing DeAngelo.4 However, it is imperative to consider that these efforts went into
vain as neither FBI nor the law agencies could arrest him. Nevertheless, the United States did
not cease the investigation of DeAngelo. The Golden State Killer was identified and located
through technology and not the conventional techniques of investigation, which as indicated
were unsuccessful. What is this technology vis-à-vis forensic science techniques? In the
present case, DeAngelo’s ostensible criminal record paused through forensic genetic
genealogy.5

Per genetic genealogy, a person – who is embarking to look into its lineage such as
identification of family members who are yet unknown – is identified through a database of
genetics. For example, the user sends in DNA sample [such as Hair, Toothbrush, Saliva] to
this direct-to-consumer database. One of the websites in the United States pertaining to the
same is 23andMe.6 Herein, a genetic profile is warranted, and as shall be evidenced in the
present report, an open-source database matches those users – GEDmatch. Subsequently,
based on the information provided per the database, twenty-five family trees were drawn.
These trees aided in capturing DeAngelo.

In furtherance of the background of the Golden State Killer case, it is now essential to delve
into the background of the issue and the general stance on this issue. Investigation officers
opt for forensic genealogy in order to form leads at unidentified suspects via the DNA sample
collected at the crime scene. These samples, coupled with the technological advancement
devices such as the tools to form a family tree for sampling, is powerful for determining the
tenability of the allegations against a suspect. These databases offer a new-fangled approach
to expose personal information for making presumptions regarding the innocence of the
accused.

Furthermore, before delving into the current scenario with respect to forensic genealogy
through DNA, reference must be made to its historical evolution in brief. Assessment of
DNA patterns commenced in 1985. They were first applied through a DNA fingerprint
4
See FBI Sacramento’s Press Release, FBI announces $50,000 reward and national campaign to identity east
area rapist/golden state killer (2016).
5
Chris Phillips, The Golden State Killer Investigation, and the Nascent Field of Forensic Genealogy, 36 FORENSIC
SCIENCES INT’L: GENETICS 186 (2018).
6
Sarah Zhang, How a Tiny Website Became the Police’s Go-To Genealogy Database, THE ATLANTIC (2018).

2
analysis in an immigration case, which subsequently, developed into other paters. As a matter
of general practice, in particular, in the US, placing reliance on DNA samples of arrestee is
admissible.7 However, increasing sensitivity, variants, breakdown through heat or other
factors highly affect the admissibility of DNA for the purposes of determination of forensic
evaluations. Furthermore, it can be transferred even through a mere contact. 8 It is also
important to note that DNA samples left over at crime scenes are considered to not violate
privacy, but what is the threshold of the same generally, is subject to an analysis of the
Golden State Killer case.

Strictly speaking, in the present times, the enforcement agencies of law move in a similar
vein in terms of DNA and its interplay with GEDmatch. Here, the identity of the offender is
perpetrated through such a genealogical investigation. Its efficaciousness can be determined
through the decision of the Golden State Killer in the following manner: Part II discusses the
facts of the case in brief. Part III of the report then discusses the arguments/contentions that
were raised by the parties during DeAngelo’s trial. Then, Part IV delineates upon a detailed
analysis of the issues involved in the present case and demystifies the nuances of not only the
Golden State Killer case but also forensic science with respect to this case generally. With
this, Part V concludes and provide suggestions to make the regime of forensic science
strengthened.

II. FACTS OF THE CASE

The Golden State Killer is a rapist and serial killer and is alleged to have committed over 12
murders and raped over 50 others between 1974-1986 in California. 9 Despite countless
investigations, the case remained unsolved with investigating agencies unable to make an
arrest for decades. It was in 2018, 10 that Joseph DeAngelo was finally arrested in Orange
County.

Joseph DeAngelo portrays typical features of recidivism, with him beginning with
committing burglary and later, moving onto many severe crimes of homicide and sexual
assault. He was an ex-policeman, and it is believed that because of having experience of

7
Maryland v. King, US 435 (2013), 569.
8
R.L. Alford, H.A. Hammond et. al., Rapid and efficient resolution of parentage by amplification of short
tandem repeats, 55(1) AM. J. HUM. GENET. 190 (1994).
9
T. Fuller, C. Hauser, Search for ‘golden state killer’ leads to arrest of ex-cop, NEW YORK TIMES (2018).
10
S. Stanton, B. Egel, R. Lillis, Update: East Area Rapist suspect captured after DNA match, authorities say,
Sacram, BEE (2018).

3
working as a police officer, he was able to elude his capture. It was the advanced study of
DNA evidence through which multiple cases in different areas were linked to a crime of a
single person. Before the study and evaluation of DNA evidence from the multiple crime
scenes, the crimes were believed to be unconnected. However, despite making progress in
making single-source DNA profiles, the case remained unsolved for decades as no match
could be made to suspect, and it did not match with any existing profile in NDIS.

Substantial progress in the Golden State Killer case was made after the DNA from the crime
scene which was collected was analyzed and compared to an open-source genealogical
website, GED Match. The officials took the assistance of a genealogist and they made
attempt to reconstruct the family tree of the profile at the crime scene. It was only after four
months of such family tree construction that potential suspects could be narrowed down in
the tree to males of the age and geography that could have committed the act.

Eventually, the search by investigating agencies was further narrowed down to look for a
male-relatives fitting the age and description of Joseph DeAngelo. He was put under
surveillance, and discarded DNA samples were collected by the authorities without Joseph’s
knowledge. The discarded samples included tissue and a swap which was taken from the
handle of a car door. Joseph DeAngelo was finally arrested and charged by the investigating
authorities after the samples collected matched those found at the crime scene.

III. ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

In the instant case, the following issues concerning the forensic investigation and science, a
discourse upon which is imperative, were considered by the court. These are as follows:

1. Whether Joseph DeAngelo was wrongly incriminated via the DNA

evaluation and consequently, did it violate the right to privacy.

1.1. Wrongful Incrimination

In any case for instance involving genealogical searching, the issues of privacy, and the
possibility of wrongful incrimination are apparent. In addition to that in the present case of
Joseph DeAngelo, there was the issue of confidentiality and the possibility of misuse of
genetic information. While investigating and after the traits were connected to DNA to be
examined in forensic genealogical searching, there is the possibility of information being
misused including the elimination of samples. Also, it is highly possible that besides the
4
person who commits a crime, there are DNA of other individuals at the crime scene including
the victim.

1.2. Privacy
The search warrant was issued to the prosecutors in the present case to collect the evidence
from DeAngelo. Under the US law, government agencies right to unfettered investigation is
substantially curtailed by constitutional mandates including a right to a fair trial and cancel.

2. Whether the investigation in this case ‘unreasonable’ and therefore,

fourth amendment can be invoked.
Under the US Constitution, the Fourth Amendment prohibits searches and seizures which are
unreasonable.11 The search would include government intrusion that threatens the privacy of
an individual.12 Merely having a warrant or declaring a search as “reasonable” without going
into its merits would result in protection being rendered under the Fourth Amendment.
However, it has been time and again held that collecting DNA and its analysis upon booking
is reasonable as then officers have reason to believe that the accused is involved in the
commission of crime.13 Also, in the Golden State Killer case, a genetic search which was
undertaken by the investigating agencies was only after exhausting all other alternatives to
identify the suspect; and the subsequent investigation which was conducted after the matches
were identified were strictly regulated.

IV. ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PARTIES

For analyzing the issues in the present case, the arguments raised by the respective parties
must be considered. This would provide for a holistic weighing of the law and factual
circumstances, which are as follows:

1. Contentions Advanced by the Prosecution

a. No unreasonable breach of Privacy
As a general practice, at the crime scene disregarded DNA is collected, and hence, the person
who commits a crime does not have an expectation of privacy. In the present case,
investigation officers were diligent in obtaining DNA from various crime scenes and that
negates the possibility of mixing up the individual’s DNA with one another to produce a
11
US CONSTITUTION, amendment IV.
12
Katz v. The United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967).
13
Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 442 (2013).

5
mixed profile. Also, according to the law, any left-over evidence at the crime scene can be
obtained as there exists no right to privacy for discarded samples.

b. Additional evidence can be lawfully obtained

The prosecutor had the warrant to obtain additional evidence from Joseph DeAngelo;
however, the lawfulness of such a warrant was challenged by the public defender. Rather, it
was argued by the prosecutors that there was no threat to Joseph’s right to due process as
while collecting his DNA, fingerprints, and pictures, he would not be required to speak.
During the whole process of collection of DNA samples and evidence, it was submitted by
the prosecutors that he would not be required to say even a word. Also, no interrogating
would be there or any talks where Joseph would have to share his thoughts or belief with law
enforcement.14

2. Contentions Advanced by the Defense

a. Obtaining of Search Warrant
Under Section 190(9) the right of the accused has been violated; the procedure followed was
not accordance with law as the defense attorney was not present there. In addition to it,
defense made it very clear that the accused was very cooperative during the search and
forensic test, the allegation made by the prosecution is false. The accused gave the swab test
without any resistance and the prosecution used it as a allegation against the accused which is
erroneous.

b. Violation of 6th amendment

The counsel states that this is not a critical stage if proceedings to get the search warrant but
there is a violation of 6th amendment. The accused have the right of 6th amendment even at
stage when the search warrant is asked for. The search was done in dark of night when the
accused was not even informed and informed hours before which is a violation of 6 th
amendment.

c. Time waiver
The defense asked for 60 days’ time waiver from the court. The court granted a time waiver
of 60 days after asking the accused.

14
Bill Hutchinson, ‘Golden State Killer’ suspect’s defense motion to bar prosecutors from collecting evidence
rejected by judge, ABC NEWS (2018).

6
 V. ANALYSIS
"It is the little details that are vital. Little things make big things happen"
- John Wooden

The said quote rightly points out how little things have the competence to make differences.
An analogy can be drawn to the fact that despite DNA being a small sample, it could make a
vast impact, as highlighted in the present case. The endeavour to have the Golden State
Killer, DeAngelo lasted for more than four decades. He was finally brought to justice in
2018, when a modern forensic science tool, namely Genetic Genealogy came to the rescue of
the failing investigations. He manged to escape the claws of investigators by using his
investigative instincts, inherited from his time as a police officer, to remain one step ahead of
the investigations always, however, he could not escape from the criminal hints of his own
genes. In these four decades, forensic science grew at a dizzying speed to evolve the Forensic
Genealogical Searching process.15 This process comprises of three phases. The first phase is
DNA Analysis, which is followed by Genealogy. Finally, the last stage is investigation.

The phase wise development of this process that led to the final cracking of the Golden State
Killer Case after 4 decades has been discussed in detail in this Section. The overview of this
process is provided in Figure 1. Part I of this Section discusses DNA Analysis and its
different aspects, Part II sheds light on the use of Genealogy in the case. Part III studies the
Investigative aspects of the process of Forensic Genealogical Searching. The Indian Position
with respect to different phases of the searching process has also been analysed in this
Section.

For a better analysis of the present case, the three phases can be succinctly seen in the below
flowchart (Figure 1):
PHASE 1: DNA ANALYSIS

1 2 3 4
Biological evidence
Biological evidence collected at STR profile searched
Crime lab generates is outsourced to
crime scene and sent to crime through NDIS, and
STR profile. generate a SNP
lab. no match is obtained.
profile.

PHASE 2: GENEALOGY

5 6 7 8 9
15
Phillips, supra note 5 at 186.

7
 Family tree
constructed
Candidate Evaluate data to
SNP profile searched based on Comparison to
matches with identify areas of
through geneaology centimorgan crime scene for
centimorgan overlap within the
direct sampling.
databse. values and family tree.
values returned.
genealogical
data.

PHASE 3: INVESTIGATION

10 11 12 Leads
12 Samples
DNA 12 STR
Candidate
DNA Samples obtained from analyzed at crime lab profiles compared to
family members. to develop STR the ones collected 13
profiles. from crime scene.

Elimination

As has been highlighted in the above flowchart, the phases are complex in nature and warrant
an exhaustive evaluation of the DNA and genealogy with respect to forensic science for
identifying the accused. The same is critically analysed as follows:

1. DNA Analysis (Phase 1): Tracing the Chain of Events of the Suspects
In general terms, DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic Acid. It is an organic compound
contained in any living cell that provides an organism with a unique genetic blueprint, which
finds its derivation in a wide range of sources such as Blood, saliva, sperm, blood, faeces,
bodily cells, bones, and organs are all examples of bodily fluids. Frederick Micscher – a
Swiss chemist – discovered DNA in 1869. In the year 1984, Sir Alec J. Jeffereys further
pioneered the usage of DNA in forensic science. It was first used by the police in England in
the infamous Enderby event, which involved two girls who were assaulted and murdered.

DNA studies are extremely successful, and except for identical twins, each person's DNA is
rare. The most valuable property of DNA is that it is so exclusive to each organism that it
cannot be tampered with. DNA scans may be used to determine a child's parentage, to
diagnose assaults, and to recognise mutilated dead bodies. They are very beneficial in the
application of criminal justice and in some legal cases such as succession, inheritance, and so
on.

A. Collection of Biological Evidence

The first step towards the DNA Analysis is the collection of biological evidence. Some
biological evidence that contains DNA are often left behind in the crime scene. These

8
samples are often considered trash and are discarded; therefore, there exists no right to
privacy of the person with respect to these samples.16

The crimes span was around ten years and so it was difficult to preserve all kinds of evidence
and most of them were discarded over a period. The crime happened at the time when the
forensic science was not advanced as it is today. Due to all these factors, there were not many
physical evidence which would tie all these crimes together. But in places where the DNA
was available, it was preserved and examined which enabled to form a link between most of
the crimes. The record of how the evidence was gathered signifies samples of the suspect’s
DNA from his car while he was shopping at the Hobby Lobby 17 and various fingerprints from
the crime scenes.

B. Generation of STR Profiles by the Crime Lab

The most frequently used type of DNA profiling in criminal cases and other forensic
applications today is called “STR” (short tandem repeat) analysis. Unlike RFLP, STR
analysis can be performed on a smaller DNA sample. This is because scientists can use a
technique called Polymerase Chain Reaction, or PCR, to amplify or duplicate the DNA and
generate the desired amount of material. Once the DNA has been amplified, STR analysis
determines the frequency with which base pairs repeat at a particular location. This could be
dinucleotide (two), trinucleotide (three), tetranucleotide (four), or pentanucleotide (five) base
pair repetitions. Base pairs of four or five are the most reliable, according to the investigators.

In the present case, DNA was extracted from various evidence that were received from the
crime scenes. The crime lab extracted the DNA and cut them into tiny fragments and
scattered it over the genotyping chip. This process resulted in alphabetical sequence that was
unique to the individual. This sequence helps in identifying the lineage of the person through
the similarities. This method of DNA profiling was used in the case.

C. Search of the STR Profile through NDIS/CODIS

The method of upholding the legislation has been significantly aided by DNA checking.
However, due to the millions of DNA samples that must be arranged and screened for
matches, the process is inherently complicated. The CODIS and NDIS are useful in this

16
California v. Greenwood, US 35 1988, 486.
17
Kellie Hwang, The Golden State Killer Case: A look back at the details of notorious case, SAN FRANCISCO
CHRONICLE (2020).

9
situation. The FBI's CODIS programme, or Combined DNA Index System, is used to
compare DNA profiles in DNA databases. The National DNA Index System, or NDIS, is the
US's collective archive of DNA profiles. 18 CODIS is used by law enforcement authorities to
establish a DNA profile from a sample taken at a crime scene and then search for the
requisite match in the database of the state through various Offenders, Arrestees, and other
Forensic Indices.

If a match is found using one of the first two indexes, the agencies will be able to find out
who the perpetrator is. If the Forensic Index confirms a match, it indicates the perpetrator
may be linked to two or three criminal events, but their identification remains undisclosed.
The findings of matches in the Convicted Offender and Arrestee Indices give law
enforcement officers the legal authority to collect a sample from a prisoner for examination
or as testimony in court. The Forensic Index matches aid agencies find potential leads in their
inquiries.

After the DNA profiling was done in the present case, it was searched in a one source DNA
database. Despite the development of forensics, no matching profile was found for the DNA
profile of the suspect. It remained unfound till 40 years of the commission of the set of
crimes. This biological evidence was then outsourced for genealogy to derive a SNP profile
and search for the requisite matches.

2. Genealogy (Phase 2): The Construction of Family Trees

When the lineage of the user is to be traced, i.e., an objective determination of the family
trees is to be made, genealogy is relied upon.

A. Basics of Genealogy
In cases where the traditional investigative techniques fail to provide any viable suspect,
genealogical searching may be considered which is an extended use of DNA Analysis and
use of DNA databases.19 It involves combining the investigative material with DNA
databases to construct family trees and using the information so obtained to identify possible
suspects. This method of finding viable suspect’s is extremely rare and has gained popularity
by helping investigations in several cases.

18
Hodge, Current controversies in the use of DNA in Forensic Science, 48 BALTIMORE LAW REVIEw 39 (2018).
19
Ray A. Wickenheiser, Forensic Genealogy, bioethics and the Golden State Killer case, 1 FORENSIC SCIENCE
INTERNATIONAL: SYNERGY 114 (2019).

10
 B. Generation of SNP Profile
NDIS houses the arrestee and convicted offender database which can be easily used for direct
comparison with a crime scene profile. However, when no DNA matches are found and
sufficient crime scene sample is remaining, generation of an extended panel of SNP data
markers can be resorted to for comparison with the genealogy databases which are publicly
accessible. STRs are the primary focus of crime laboratories, therefore, purified crime scene
samples ought to be sent to external laboratories for the additional process of developing SNP
profile. Genealogy databases are usually designed with the aim of finding biological relatives.
Therefore, once the SNP profile from the crime scene is generated, the website search
mechanism can be used for any other relatives.

C. Use of Genealogy Databases

If the expanded DNA search helps in generation of leads that seem connected with the crime
scene profile’s donor, the investigation needs to be taken to the next step by the police
whereby a pool of candidates is developed and narrowed down. This is done with the help of
genealogy databases available online. These entries in these databases usually belong to users
who are generally trying to connect with their unknown family member by tracing their
lineage. These users send in their DNA sample, such as a sample of their saliva, to a DTC
(direct to consumer) genetic database services like 23andMe or Ancestry.com. 20 These
commercial services charge a fee from the users in exchange. These services provide a
genetic profile to the user.

The user can further upload this profile to an open-source, publicly accessible, free website,
GEDmatch, which creates a pool of genetic profiles. This platform enables the users to find
matches on various services in addition to the service they initially opted for. 21 GEDmatch
looks for the sections of user’s chromosomes which match with other users in its database
and further provides the contact information and username in case any genetic matches are
found coupled with the level of estimated closeness between the related matches.

In DeAngelo’s case, the investigators became inventive and careful in their pursuit of the
suspect. One of the investigators, Paul Holes, spent over 7 years using various genealogy
websites which were open-sourced, in pursuit of viable suspects. Initially, a weak match was
20
Sarah Zhang, How a Tiny Website Became the Police's Go-To Genealogy Database, ATLANTIC (1 June 2018),
available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/gedmatch-police-genealogy (last accessed
13 May 2021).
21
Id.

11
generated by his use of ‘ysearch.org’ with a 73-year-old man from Oregon. 22 It helped the
investigator get rid of his suspicion by voluntarily giving his DNA sample, which led to his
elimination as a suspect and established his innocence. Post this, the investigator started visit
other jurisdictions that became victim to DeAngelo’s criminal career, with the intent to
collect DNA from these crime scenes and run it through a different genetic database,
GEDmatch.

Though the primary use of this open-source platform was connecting with long lost relatives,
yet the openness of the platform gave the investigators an access to a large pool of DNA
profiles without the requirement of a court order. Later, another investigator namely, Steve
Rhodes discovered a rape kit in the coroner’s office that turned out to be the ‘mother lode of
DNA’ and the following upload to GEDmatch provided a distant match which was
approximately the equivalent of third cousins.

D. Construction of Family Trees

The novel information acquired using the Genealogy Database by Holes was employed to
trace back the distant relatives revealed in a match to a common ancestor by mapping down a
family lineage. He mapped down the same which went back to the early 1800s to the great-
great-great grandparents. Family trees up to third or fourth cousins were mapped out
consisting of both the maternal and the paternal lines, with close eye to the crossing points of
trees’ separate branches. An individual’s DNA has almost 50% similarity with each parent
and 25% with grandparents. Further, since two individuals share some common ancestor for
each generation, the genetic similarity reduces to 1/4. It implies that roughly there is 12.5%
similarity between first cousins, 3.12% between second cousins and below 1% with third
cousins.

The investigators carefully and steadily tracked potential suspects through generations by
tracing offspring to this day. Holes hewed down the giant family trees that he framed on
Ancestry.com by taking help of other resources like old newspapers clippings, census data,
LexisNexis, and gravesite locator. The process that these investigators were subjected to was
exhausting and daunting. Among twenty-five family trees that were drawn by the
investigators to find the suspect, the one linked to Joseph DeAngelo alone consisted of

22
Matthias Gafni, Here's the 'Open Source' Genealogy Website that Helped Crack the Golden State Killer Case,
MERCURY (2018).

12
approximately 1000 members.23 This information was further narrowed down as discussed in
Phase 3.

3. Investigation (Phase III): How Genealogical Investigation is pertinent

to the Golden State Killer case?
The third phase of Genealogical Searching is Investigation. Once the list of potential suspects
has been framed using genetic genealogy, traditional investigative techniques are brough
back in the game. After careful examination of the information gathered from phase 2,
coupled with data discovered during investigation, such as age, location and other crime-
specific information, individual candidates are scrutinized for comparison with the physical
features as described by the perpetrator’s past eyewitnesses and police statements. This aids
in narrowing down the list of potential offenders. These candidates from the final list are
sampled for the investigation. To eliminate suspicion, usually, the investigators collect a
discarded sample.

In the next step, this newly collected known sample from the suspect is tested for comparison
with the crime scene profile, which results in either a match or an elimination. The
tremendous efforts put in the investigative process boils down to this juncture of direct
comparison.

In the present case, the list was finally narrowed down to DeAngelo and 4 other white men
after the investigators eliminated individuals using clues like sex, place of residence and age.
However, some factors such as old age, serving as a full-time cop were considered by Holes
as strikes against DeAngelo being the killer. However, one fact particularly damned
DeAngelo. In July 1978, during a rape, the Golden State Killer was known to be sobbing and
uttering ‘I hate you Bonnie, I hate you, Bonnie.’ Investigators discovered the fact of
DeAngelo’s engagement in 1970, with a woman named Bonnie.24

The surviving victims described the perpetrator to the investigators to be a 165 pound, 5’9’’
white male. From the list of the narrowed down suspects, this description matched the
physical appearance and features of the former police inspector, DeAngelo. In order to avoid
suspicion, his DNA was collected from his car door while he was in California. The collected
23
Justin Jouvenal, To Find Alleged Golden State Killer, Investigators First Found His Great-great-great
Grandparents, WASHINGTON POST (2018).
24
Ryan Lillis, Here's the Inside Story of How Police Nabbed the East Area Rapist Suspect, SACRAMENTO BEE
(Apr. 29, 2018), http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/ article210003114.html.

13
sample matched with the semen samples recovered from the crime scenes of the Golden State
Killer. Later, a second sample was obtained from a discarded tissue thrown by DeAngelo in
his trash bin and was finally arrested on 24 April 2018. The search warrant for DeAngelo’s
house was obtained by the police based on the genealogical search conducted by the
investigators here.

4. Critical Concerns in DNA and Genealogy vis-à-vis Forensic Science

There are various issues and concerns that ignite controversies with respect to use of genetics
in forensic science. The Golden State Killer case has been the starting point of these prevalent
issues. Consequently, it is imperative for us to understand these aspects in detail:

A. Genetic Privacy
In the Golden State Killer Case, investigators compared facts about members of those
families to the killer's possible demographics and identified Joseph James DeAngelo as a
suspect. When you give a cheek swab to one of the private genome firms, you risk
jeopardizing not just your own privacy, but also the privacy of your family and friends. We
may be relieved that these heinous cases have been solved, but we must be mindful of the
possible privacy threats revealed by this operation. Many Americans are rightly worried
about social media sites misusing their data, but they should be equally concerned about who
has access to their information.

Any unlawful search of seizure through genetic analysis is prohibited by the Fourth
Amendment.25 The genetic materials that are collected from the crime scenes are generally
discarded properties and no reasonable expectation of right to privacy exists. 26 Moreover, the
public interest attached to finding a criminal is higher than personal liberties of the suspect.

According to Gruber, in the case of Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad

Genetics Inc,27 it was held that DNA is not property. Your genetic material, on the other
hand, provides a wealth of health and heritage data about you and your ancestors. There are
increasingly rigorous provisions in place if genetic knowledge is exchanged with a provider
or a health care organisation. The Genetic Information and Non-discrimination Act of
2008, for example, bans health insurance providers from using genetic information to
25
US CONSTITUTION, Amendment IV.
26
Michelle, The Genetic Witness: Forensic DNA Phenotyping, 36 Journal of Emerging Forensic Science Research
(2017).
27
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc., 2013 US Lexis 4540.

14
determine qualifications, benefits, or premiums. It also forbids managers from using
hereditary information in recruiting and firing decisions.

B. Legality of DNA Analysis in Indian Legal System

Though no explicit DNA law has been passed in India, Sections 53 and 54 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 allows for DNA checks implicitly, and they are often used to resolve
complicated criminal cases. Section 53 pertains to the assessment of the accused by a medical
professional at the order of a police officer where there are fair reasons to suspect that an
examination of his body would yield proof about the commission of the offence. Section 54
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, further allows for the arrestee's review by a licensed
medical professional upon his or her request.

Section 27(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, states that where an investigation
officer submits a written order to the court of the CJM or the court of the CMM for the
purpose of acquiring a copy of the handwriting, fingerprints, footprints, photos, blood, saliva,
sperm, fur, or speech of any convicted individual, fair defendant engaged in the commission
of an offence under this act. The court of CJM or the court of CMM may order that those
samples be provided to the police officer by the convicted individual, either by a medical
practitioner or otherwise.

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, the utilization of DNA evidence has changed the scenario of criminal justice
system drastically and its gives and evidence that can convict a person and even absolve an
accused from liabilities. The Golden state case is an exceptional example that DNA provides
the complete genetic code and can be used to trace the criminal activities took place in late
1970’s. In a criminal investigation it is a standard procedure to take skin, saliva and blood
samples found on crime scene and compare it with the database to combat crime. The usage
of DNA evidence also comes with controversies as usually experts disagree with the analysis
of the test results.28

The techniques such as familial DNA and forensic phenotyping are very accurate in criminal
investigation but come up with ethical and legal issues like accuracy, racial profiling, and
infringement of privacy.29 It is also interesting to know that whether the criminal
investigation system will follow a common practice in Familial DNA and forensic
28
Ray, supra 19.

15
 phenotyping just like fingerprint science. The Golden State case also comes up with the
harms and benefits of DTC databases and raised questions on the new Fourth amendment.
The evidence that is collected from a crime scene can be fully interrogated because a
discarded sample cannot raise question of right to privacy.

The law enforcement departments and the forensic laboratories are duty bound to maximize
the value of evidence. The concept of genealogical searching is an intrusion in right of
privacy of innocent persons so the agencies should work with caution and care. The key
elements that should be kept in mind for a genealogical searching in a criminal investigation
are to respect the privacy of the victims and of the person having investigative interest so that
an ethical framework can be established. The victims and elimination of reference sample
must be separate from the database and was used only for the present matter.

The principle of proportionality should be ethical and provide solution in a situation of

dilemmas where the rights are overlapping, to arrive at a balanced solution which respects
rights of each party. In case where the damage to the society is potentially high in
commission of crimes like homicide and rape, the weight of the damage will be higher than
the negative impact on right of privacy of an individual. Therefore, to conclude, there is a
need to protect the data of the people and earn their confidence in the system.

Therefore, to strengthen the regime of forensic science and to allow for an efficacious use of
forensic science, genealogy, DNA study for learning about the suspect; the following
suggestions could be considered:

 Concerns of confidentiality must be given primacy: The investigation authorities while

approaching the people of investigative interest must take care of confidentiality of such
person because they may not be guilty but related to the suspect in some sense. The forensic
personnel should be mandated to limit the contamination to maintain case integrity and
elimination sampling should be compulsory on the crime scene.
 To prevent misuse, training should be given: Law enforcement and forensic scientist should
be provided training to how data should be properly safeguard and people with investigative
interest should be treated. The access of database information and case should be monitored
and a protection of it from not gets misused.

29
Joseph Zabel, The Killer Inside Us: Law, Ethics, and the Forensic Use of Family Genetics, 24 BERKLEY J. OF
CRIMINAL LAW 47 (2019).

16
 Notification to the users pertaining to the potential use of their information: The people
who are putting their genetic information into the databases which are searchable should be
notified about the potential use of such information and it should include the forensic
genealogical search.
 Transparency for maintaining public interest: There should be transparency to maintain
public trust and ensure a balance between public safety and privacy by keeping the
application, acceptance and reporting of case transparent. In addition to it steps must be
taken to establish strong procedures and regulations to make sure the right to privacy is
maintained and respected within the forensic investigative genealogical searching system.
 Constraining the forensic investigations: There should be some restrictions over such
forensic investigations like a warrant requirement. Inclusion of warrant requirement will
ensure judicial oversight on the investigation which is lacking a bit right now. In addition to it
the genetic search should be the last option of investigation when all other less intrusive
tactics has been exhausted.
 Owing to DNA’s personal attributes, secured databases must exist: It is also suggested that
the DNA profiles contain data that is very personal in nature and should not be stored in an
open source like databases which are not secured. In addition to it samples should be
destroyed after the forensic profiling work is done, it will be a solution for problem like
multiple use of the sample.

17