Many areas of human society have been benefited by DNA technology. In crime investigation, the use of DNA has helped the police for a number of years. From the unheard of, to notorious cases, the use of DNA to identify criminals has made officers’ work less difficult. There is a current privacy concern involving the collection of DNA profiles. The police aired their privacy concerns about the move by officials to keep a database of the officers’ own DNA.

To rule out speculation that a police officer committed a complicated crime, police officials have ordered the DNA testing of law enforcement personnel. This unpopular order was issued after the deaths of eight women in Louisiana in 2009. These were cases of a serial killer that showed a high degree of “workmanship” in committing the murders. Rumors spread that a police officer was involved in the killings. Consequently, all officers in Louisiana agreed to undergo testing. The final outcome showed that the killer was not among them.

Some officers feel that this DNA collection is not something they should give much attention to. They say that having a DNA file of police officers is important in conducting crime scene investigations because it would make it easier for them to recognize unknown genetic materials found at crime scenes.

An inmate in a maximum security prison was recently involved in a privacy case that went all the way to Maryland’s highest court. Usually inmates, especially those who have committed heinous enough crimes to land themselves into a maximum security prison, are expected and granted no privacy. These people have forfeited that right by taking away someone else’s rights, sometimes even through murder. This man actually killed another prisoner while already serving his prison sentence.

What happened was he wrote a letter to his dad and left it in an unsealed envelope. The letter described his confusion with his actions, and how he was disturbed that he killed another man. Prison officials seized the letter and used it as evidence against the man in a case against him. This letter provided irrefutable proof that he did indeed kill the man, and this would certainly land him a guilty charge, with no contest. This man would be in prison for the rest of his life, if not land him on death row.

In court, prison officials argued that the letter wasn’t sealed, and that all prisoners have to have all of their mail scanned and censored, both out-going and incoming. This, they argue, would have had the letter found anyway, so they would have gotten him like that. They also argue the letter is good evidence. The man argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were being violated by them reading and seizing his un-sent letter. Even though it was unsealed, they still should have not been allowed to get into it. By doing this, the evidence should be negated he said, and he wasn’t planning on sending the letter anyway, it was just a venting system.