ACLU sues San Diego police over how it collects DNA from juveniles – The San Diego Union-Tribune

A blackteenager who was stopped by police last year while walking through a San Diego park is challenging the Police Departments policies and practices for obtainingDNA from minors without first notifying a parent.

Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties filed a federal lawsuit last week on behalf of the boy and his mother, Jamie Wilson.They contend police officers violated the boys civil rights in March when they detained, handcuffed and searched him at Memorial Community Park in Logan Heights, and then took a sample of his DNA without a warrant or his mothers consent.

According to the complaint, San Diego Police Department policy allows officers to obtainconsent from a minor for DNA collection the same way they would for an adult.

California law restricts the collection of DNA from a juvenile for inclusion in Californias DNA database, but the lawsuit says San Diego has sidestepped that by maintaining its own local database. Officers are required to notify a juveniles parents only after a DNA sample has been taken.

San Diegos policy systematically works to circumventparents right to advise their kids, saidJonathan Markovitz, one of the attorneys representing Wilson and her son.

A Police Department spokesman declined to comment about the lawsuit but provided a copy of the agencys procedures for dealing with juveniles. The document states that a minors DNA can be taken and stored in the departments own data bank if obtained legally and for investigative purposes.

We have just been made aware of the lawsuit filed by the ACLU.This case is pending litigation we therefore cannot comment further, police Lt.Scott Wahl said in an email.

The plaintiffs are seeking a permanentinjunction from the court that would forbid the San Diego Police Department from enforcing the citys policy on DNA collection from juveniles without a warrant or parental consent. They are also asking for an order compelling the Police Department to return any DNA samples from the teen identified in the lawsuit.

They also are seeking unspecified monetary damages.

According to the lawsuit, police officers chose to conduct a pat-down search of the 16-year-old boy identified in the document by the initials P.D. and four of his friends not because there was a reasonable suspicion they had been involved in a crime, but because they were black juveniles, some of whom were wearing blue, walking through a park in southeast San Diego on a particular day.

The officers expectedgang activity in the park that day, March 30, a supposed gang holiday, the lawsuit said. Blue is a color associated with a particular street gang.

P.D. and the other minors told the officers they had been playing basketball in the area.

After the pat-down search, the officerssearched a duffel bag P.D. had with him that afternoon and found an unloaded handgun. They collected DNA samples from him and his four companionsafter obtaining their signed consent.

The friends were released and P.D. was booked into Juvenile Hall.

The difficulty with kids giving consent is that they are particularly vulnerable to authority,Markovitz said, noting that children and teens are less likely to think through the consequences of their actions a concept state and federal laws have acknowledged.

Hesaid the search of the teensduffel bag was unlawful and any consent the teen had given for the taking of his DNA sample was essentially coerced, given that the officers let his friends go after they each signed a form agreeing to let the officers swab the inside of their mouths to collect DNA.

There wasnt anything approaching knowing and voluntary consent. ... He wasnt given the opportunity to talk to his mother,Markovitz said.

Per department procedure,a San Diego policeofficer has to notify a supervisor or contact a field lieutenant for approval before collecting a mouth swab DNA sample from a juvenile. The office must also fill out a Consent to Collect Saliva form and obtain the minors signature.

An officer who takes a mouth swab sample from a juvenile will notify the parent or legal guardian that a sample was taken and document that information on a report,according to the department.

According to the lawsuit, the District Attorneys Office filed charges in Juvenile Court against P.D. on April 4, stemming from the discovery of the gun in the duffel bag. He remained inJuvenile Hall until April 8, when he was released and placed on home supervision.

On June 27, a judge threw out the evidence related to the gun because it was fruit of an unlawful search that violated P.D.s Fourth Amendment rights, under the U.S. Constitution. A month later, the court dismissed the charges but no order was made to destroy the teens DNA sample.

Its caused tremendous emotional and financial suffering, Markovitz said, referring to the effects of the arrest and subsequent court proceedings on the teen and his family.

Hismother is expected to appearat a news conference Wednesday, when ACLU representatives will discuss the lawsuit and issues related to local policing.

dana.littlefield@sduniontribune.com

Twitter: @danalittlefield

Original post:
ACLU sues San Diego police over how it collects DNA from juveniles - The San Diego Union-Tribune