New Jersey Sued Again For Giving Cops Access To Newborn Babies’ DNA
from the I-guess-getting-sued-is-easier-than-respecting-the-4th dept
It appears the New Jersey Department of Health still believes the state’s residents are better served by giving law enforcement another way to dodge the Constitution.
The Department of Health was sued two years ago by the state’s Office of the Public Defender (OPD). That lawsuit targeted the state’s peculiar practice of holding on to newborns’ blood tests for nearly a quarter century and turning these over to investigators who just don’t feel like following the Fourth Amendment rules.
Here’s what triggered that lawsuit:
Plaintiff New Jersey Office of the Public Defender (OPD) recently learned that the State Police has successfully subpoenaed a newborn blood spot sample from the Newborn Screening Laboratory that belonged to a child who is now approximately nine years old. The reason the State Police subpoenaed the sample was so that it could perform a DNA analysis on the sample and tie the child’s father, who became OPD’s client, to a crime that was committed in 1996.
By serving a subpoena upon the Newborn Screening Laboratory, the State Police sidestepped its constitutional obligation to develop probable cause and obtain a warrant so that it could obtain a buccal swab from OPD’s client to perform an analysis of his DNA. By obtaining the child’s blood spot sample from the Newborn Screening Laboratory, it was able to perform a DNA analysis on the child’s blood and then use those DNA results to form the basis of an affidavit of probable cause to obtain a warrant for a buccal swab from OPD’s client. OPD’s client was later criminally charged.
This is a public records lawsuit, filed in conjunction with the New Jersey Monitor after the Department of Health refused to turn over records detailing the frequency of requests for blood samples by state law enforcement agencies, as well as the names of the agencies engaging in this unconstitutional dodge.
Now, it’s being sued by parents who did not realize their infants’ blood samples would not only be held for nearly a quarter century, but were accessible with nothing more than a subpoena. The Institute for Justice is representing two mothers (so far) who were never told this sort of thing was happening, nor given any opportunity to opt out. Here’s IJ’s Daryl James and Brian Morris with the details for the Daily Beast.
Without telling parents, the state has stored samples from each baby born since the 1970s, creating a secretive database with millions of entries. Blood samples stay on file for 23 years. DNA data might last longer on third-party servers.
New Jersey does not say precisely what happens to the data, but the state gives itself permission to share the genetic markers it collects with anyone it wants for any reason, including law enforcement. The risk is not just hypothetical. New Jersey already has turned over infant blood samples to police agencies without a warrant, leading to criminal charges for at least one father.
Technically, parents can opt out of the screening if they object on religious grounds. But hospitals hide this option, and some families report threats of being reported to Child Protective Services if they refuse. A half-page handout from the New Jersey Department of Health claims “all” infants are “required by law” to give blood to the state.
The handout says nothing about long-term storage.
As the article points out, New Jersey isn’t the only state doing questionable things with infants’ blood and/or DNA samples. The thing about those states is that they’re no longer allowed to do these things, thanks to successful lawsuits.
The case builds on earlier lawsuits exposing invasive uses of baby blood samples without parental consent. Plaintiffs caught Texas turning over DNA data to the Pentagon for a national registry. Michigan was selling newborn blood for research. So was Minnesota. Court rulings forced all three of these states to stop.
New Jersey’s effort, however, raises multiple constitutional issues. First, there’s the bypassing of warrant requirements with the use of subpoenas issued to another government agency. Then there’s the storage of the blood for twenty-three years — something that allows the state to build a database of DNA samples just in case they might prove useful to law enforcement at any time in the future.
But that’s not how the Fourth Amendment works. Government agencies don’t get to stockpile potential evidence in hopes that it might help in investigations, including investigations that haven’t even been initiated yet. Even similar stockpiles — like plate/location info gathered by automatic license plate readers — are purged far more frequently of their data.
The lawsuit [PDF] filed by Institute for Justice asks for the court to order the state to either end the program or continue this collection only if parents are fully informed of the program’s details. It also asks for this program — if it’s allowed to continue — be opt-in only.
As it stands now, the program that was created to screen newborn babies for certain diseases has become just another way for cops to sidestep constitutional protections… for up to twenty-three years after a child is born. That’s downright dystopian and the state should have altered or ended this program long before being sued.
Filed Under: 4th amendment, dna, new jersey, njsp, police, subpoenas, warrant
Comments on “New Jersey Sued Again For Giving Cops Access To Newborn Babies’ DNA”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
What a ridiculous accusation. Everyone knows the Democrats that run New Jersey drink all the babies’ blood.
Ive seen both Boss Baby and Baby Genuises. We need to stop babies now, before it’s too late.
Re:
Those? Those are just movies. Fiction.
Real babies are much more calculating and cold blooded.
Do you want unvaxxinated newborns? This is how you get unvaxxinated newborns
As it stands now, the program that was created to screen newborn babies for certain diseases has become just another way for cops to sidestep constitutional protections… for up to twenty-three years after a child is born. That’s downright dystopian and the state should have altered or ended this program long before being sued.
It’s not just dystopian it’s dangerous, both for parents and the children the state claims to care about because abuse of what should have been a purely helpful system like this breed distrust and contempt towards the health system in general and parents that might have otherwise trusted doctors to have their patients’ best interest at heart now have a valid reason to suspect otherwise, opening the door for them to start giving ideas that they might have dismissed outright before serious consideration.
Re:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
Trust is hard to gain and easy to lose.
Re: Re:
Trust and credibility are like a spinal cord: They only take a moment to sever, and even if you repair them, they’ll never work like they did before.
health privacy
so HIPPA doesn’t exist in New Jersey?
health professionals are not supposed to divulge health info to people who are not the patient.
why isn’t the healthcare provider being held accountable?
Re:
Because this technically isn’t a violation of HIPAA. The individuals misusing the data after gaining it via subpoena are doing so to ‘solve crimes’, not to find out what health conditions the people have or may have in the future.
“Even similar stockpiles — like plate/location info gathered by automatic license plate readers — are purged far more frequently of their data.”
I’m also skeptical that this type of information is actually being purged as often as they claim it is (or ever).
Using a baby's DNA to investigate something from 1996?
Is at best….. sketchy
I don’t see what the problem is. Everyone knows that babies are just future criminals. /s
Re:
Sad thing is, that’s probably how the average Republican lawmaker feels about children—or certain children from certain demographics that they’re certain not to mention on a hot mic, at any rate.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
What’s controversial about saying that black male babies are likely, later in life, to have lower IQs than Asian male babies and be much more likely to commit hideous violent crimes like murder?
We need less black babies (especially born to unwed mothers) and more Asian babies born into stable households.
Re: Re: Re:
You answered your own question.
Re: Re: Re:
“Controversial” is not the correct word.
The correct word is “wrong”. Or “stupid”, or “racist”.
Re: Re: Re:
What’s really sad is that racist morons think that such things are the result of genetics and not generational abuse and neglect… and then whine when “CRT” or “DEI” or whatever the latest boogeyman is mentioned to try and fix the problem.
What’s needed is less racist morons and more fixes for the problems caused by generational prejudice. Yes, even if you identified a different minority who didn’t suffer the same abuse (though I suspect you’re the type to change your tune about Asian benefits when Tik Tok is mentioned)
Re: Re:
Which is why I included a sarc mark. Given all the hate speech used so casually on this site, someone might have believed I actually feel that way.
Is there any legitimate reason to hold onto the samples? Screen and throw them out. Hell, the screening should be done by the hospital where the birth occurs or a contracted out provider and the government should never get the sample. It certainly doesn’t when we go for blood tests.
Re: Why States hold onto blood spots from newborns
I agree that NJ State Police are behaving inappropriately by requesting these samples for investigations. However, there are legitimate reasons for States to hold onto the samples.
These tests are aimed at identifying conditions that can harm or kill children early in life. Conditions like Spinal Muscular Atrophy, which until recently was the #1 genetic cause of death among infants in the US (other conditions like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell, etc are also on these lists).
Many of these conditions won’t otherwise be diagnosed until it is too late to prevent serious injury or death. In order to make it onto the screening list, most states require that there be a treatment which can be given to prevent serious injury or death. So these programs save lots of children and families from terrible outcomes (about 12,000 per year in US).
States have several legitimate reasons: 1) to develop tests for new conditions added to the screening list, 2) to ensure the screening methods they use are working (QC/QA), and 3) to provide genetic researchers with population-level samples to estimate how common conditions are.
I think NJ State Police are wrong, very wrong, to use these samples for criminal investigations but these programs spare many families from immense tragedies and suffering.
Re: Re:
All I’m reading is reasons to collect and screen the blood, not to keep it on file for decades after the fact.
Does this sample test positive?
If Yes: Apply treatment and destroy sample.
If No: Destroy sample.
Everyone knows a BABY doesn’t have any rights, only a FETUS can have rights! This is Repubmerica!