I’m not sure I buy it. Police need a warrant to get dna evidence from a suspect, but warrants can and often are contested. If the system had any false positives or wasn’t a perfect match a good attorney would be able to argue there are no grounds for the warrant.
If the fuzz had other evidence like an unverified alibi or evidence putting the suspect in the area that would probably be enough for a judge to issue a warrant, but if the dna photo was the only evidence I’d say it’s dicey at best if tested.
Exactly. So this just gives them a potential suspect to investigate. Nothing more. Then they investigate them to get what they need for a warrant. This doesn’t get the warrant.
No because you are just using this to generate a description based on DNA evidence you have.
All the rules that exist to determine if you can take a DNA sample from a suspect would still exist.
If you pass those it’s the DNA evidence that convicts.
Again this is the same as using a sketch from a witness description to locate suspects.
That sketch doesn’t need to hold up in court. Exactly the same principle.
I’m not sure I buy it. Police need a warrant to get dna evidence from a suspect, but warrants can and often are contested. If the system had any false positives or wasn’t a perfect match a good attorney would be able to argue there are no grounds for the warrant.
If the fuzz had other evidence like an unverified alibi or evidence putting the suspect in the area that would probably be enough for a judge to issue a warrant, but if the dna photo was the only evidence I’d say it’s dicey at best if tested.
Exactly. So this just gives them a potential suspect to investigate. Nothing more. Then they investigate them to get what they need for a warrant. This doesn’t get the warrant.