Forensic Science International 146S (2004) S119–S121
www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint
Forensic DNA analysis
International perspectives on forensic DNA databases
Christopher H. Asplen*, Smith Alling Lane
Available online 16 December 2004
Forensic DNA technology and DNA databases are widely
recognized as some of the most effective and efficient crime
fighting tools available to law enforcement. Every day and
all around the world, hundreds of cases are solved through
DNA even when no viable suspect was previously identified
by law enforcement. These cases are often our most heinous
and violent and can be years or decades old. Across the
world, more countries and law enforcement agencies are
creating and utilizing DNA databases.
However, while many factors go into making an effective
DNA database, the single most important factor in making a
database effective is the legislation that creates it and what
the law allows law enforcement to do with it. Even if a
laboratory’s quality is excellent and the processing time very
quick, ineffective database legislation can prevent databases
from being used in a way that maximizes their potential. It is
the quality of database laws that make DNA an effective
investigative tool.
In absence of a DNA database, DNA technology fails to
be an effective investigative tool. Without the database,
DNA can only be useful once police have identified a suspect
through the traditional investigative means. DNA alone only
makes a case better once police have done their job. How-
ever, with the DNA database, the investigative process itself
becomes more effective and efficient. This is especially true
in cases where traditional investigative techniques have been
unhelpful and no suspect can be identified.
European Union recommendation
In recognition of the power and effectiveness of DNA
technology when applied through DNA databases, in June
1997 and as amended in June 2001, the European Union
recommended that member countries establish ‘‘compati-
ble’’ forensic DNA databases. Consistent with the goal of
preserving individual country security while at the same
* Corresponding author.
0379-0738/$ – see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.036
time easing border restrictions, the EU recognized that a
Pan-European database is an effective way to protect against
cross-border crime. By each country establishing a forensic
database, and by those countries being connected by a
European wide database, perpetrators who cross borders
to commit crime could more easily be identified and appre-
hended.
As various countries have sought to access the benefits of
this technology, they have approached the implementation
and use of these databases differently. Issues of who is to be
included in the database, sample storage, length of profile
retention, expungement are just a few of the issues that must
be addressed in the development of forensic databases. This
paper will show how different countries throughout Europe
and elsewhere have implemented DNA databases to max-
imize their crime fighting ability.
Summary of international DNA datatbases (Source:
Interpol global DNA database inquiry)
 Seventy-six Interpol member countries either have or are
implementing DNA databases.
 Sixty of those countries either have or are implementing
DNA database legislation.
 Many countries have different databases and database
laws among and between there states and territories.
(i.e. Germany, Australia, United States)
Summary of European DNA databases (Source: Interpol
global DNA database inquiry)
 Thirty-six of the 46 European Interpol members perform
forensic DNA testing.
 Thiry-four of those countries have or are planning to have
forensic DNA databases. (see end note)
 Twenty-four of those countries allow for the international
exchange of information.
S120 C.H. Asplen, S.A. Lane / Forensic Science International 146S (2004) S119–S121

Database effectiveness statistics individuals suspected of or arrested for any recordable

 UK database identifies approximately 1000 suspects per
week.
 Canada matched 359 cases in 5 months.
 US State of Virginia solves approximately 30 no-suspect
cases per month through the database.
 US State of Florida has solved over 1000 no-suspect cases
in the past 2 years.
Critical issues in the consideration of DNA database laws
offense. Also, as with convicted offenders, the trend
throughout the world is to amend current legislation to
include a wider scope of suspects to increase the effective-
ness of the database.
Suspected or arrested for any recordable offence
 England
 Austria
 Slovenia

There are four critical issues to be considered when
crafting legislation that would create a DNA database:
1. Which convicted offenders should be included in the
database?
2. Which suspects should be included in the database?
3. When DNA profiles should be removed from the data-
base?
4. Whether reference samples should be retained or
destroyed after profiling?
Suspected or arrested for severe crimes or sexual assault
 Germany: punishable by more than one year of prison
 Finland: punishable by more than one year of prison
 Denmark: punishable by more than 1.5 years of prison
 Switzerland: catalogue of serious offenses
 Hungary: punishable by more than 5 years of prison and
Specific enumerated offenses
 France: must be ordered by Magistrate or Prosecutor
3. Profile removal criteria

1. Convicted offenders When a profile should be removed from the database is as

important as when one should be entered. As with profile
The entry criteria for convicted offenders varies greatly entry, different countries approach profile removal (or
from country to country. What is common however is the expungement) differently.
trend towards greater inclusion of either specific convicted
offender crimes (i.e. burglary or auto theft) or of classes of (a) Convicted offenders
convicted individuals (i.e. all serious violent offenses.).
Some countries base inclusion in the database of convicted Never removed:
offenders on specific enumerated offenses. Some base it on  England
the length of the sentence received. Some countries require a  Austria
court order while in other countries the sampling is auto-  Finland
matic.  Norway
Removed after 5–20 years:
 Germany: specific enumerated offenders and with court  Belgium
order  Denmark
 Sweden: >2 years of prison  Germany
 England: any recordable offense  Hungary
 Norway: serious crime, after court decision  Netherlands
 Belgium: after court decision  Sweden
 Netherlands: >4 years of prison, otherwise only voluntary  Slovenia: depending on severity of the crime
samples
 France: specific enumerated offenses (b) Suspects
Removed when acquitted or charges dropped:
2. Suspects  Austria
 Germany
Similar to the entry of convicted offenders, the entry of  Hungary
DNA profiles from suspects or arrestees can be decided  Finland
either of two ways. Some countries base the inclusion of  Switzerland: 5 years after charges have been dropped
suspects in the database on the specific crime of which they  Denmark: 10 years after acquittal or immediately
are suspected. Other countries base the inclusion of suspects after charges have been dropped
in the database on the potential length of sentence the  France
suspect might receive if convicted. Some countries do not Never to be removed:
distinguish between the two approaches and allow entry of  England
 C.H. Asplen, S.A. Lane / Forensic Science International 146S (2004) S119–S121
4. Reference sample retention
Reference sample retention has practical as well political
implications. Some countries choose to retain samples for
database hit confirmation or future testing in the case of
errors or advanced technology. Yet some countries choose to
destroy reference samples so as to remove any possibility or
perception that government be able to perform any other
inappropriate or illegal testing on the sample.
Reference samples can be kept:
 Austria
 England
 Denmark
 Finland
 Hungary
 Slovenia
 Switzerland
Reference samples must be destroyed after testing:
 Belgium
 Germany
 Netherlands
 Norway
Examples of non-European database legislation
United States databases
The database system in the United States is actually a
system that connects 50 different state databases to a
national computer network. Therefore, each state has devel-
oped its own laws while following certain federal guidelines.
While much of the legislation is similar, some states have
chosen to approach some issues differently.
 All states retain convicted offender samples for the con-
firmation of database hits as well as in anticipation of new
technology
 Recently, some states have passed laws allowing for the
entry of suspect profiles for the purpose of searching the
database. (Texas and Virginia)
New Zealand database—changes
New Zealand is a good example of a country, which after
using its DNA database for several years, has recognized
S121
several changes that need to be made to improve the
efficiency of the database. The proposed changes are
expected to pass the legislature this term. The changes that
need to be made are good examples of issues that can be
dealt with properly when crafting legislation the first time.
 Allows for the use of buccal or mouth swabs to be taken
because originally only blood samples could be used. Also
provides for the same security and safety procedures for
swabs as for blood.
 Allows for retroactive sampling of convicted offenders,
i.e. individuals convicted before enactment of the
statute.
 Eliminates a previous requirement that samples be taken
within 6 months of incarceration.
 Removes the requirement of a judicial decree for sam-
pling but allows for hearing at the request of the defendant
if he opposes.
 Extends the range of biological material, which can be
used as a justification for compelling a suspect to provide
a sample.
 Includes burglary as an offense to be included in the
convicted offender database.
 Allows DNA samples to be taken from individuals sus-
pected of, or convicted of, attempting to commit any of the
relevant scheduled offenses.
 Extends the range of individuals who may take blood
samples.
Note:
It should be recognized that DNA database laws changes
often. As new data on the effectiveness of DNA databases is
collected and analyzed, governments move to expand their
legislation accordingly. The author is currently involved in a
study through the European Network of Forensic Science
Institutes (ENFSI) to evaluate the current status of all ENFSI
member country DNA database laws.
Interpol global DNA database inquiry 2002 results
regarding European countries, which either have or plan
to have DNA databases:
Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bul-
garia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxem-
bourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine,
United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.