Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your DNA / biometric privacy?
Here’s what they say on their website
The Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to protecting the privacy of your potentially personally identifiable data (PPID) in a strong and meaningful manner. Our privacy policy is designed to inform both members of the public and our employees about the PPID information we collect, how we use it, how we maintain it in our systems, under what circumstances you may access or correct your own information, and what we may disclose to others.
Biometric Identification Information
MSP may collect and use your biometric Information, including (but not limited to): fingerprint images, palm print images, iris images, digital images captured during your arrest or booking, and descriptive data associated with all images, identifying marks, scars, amputations, and tattoos, for identification and investigative purposes.
It may also require submission of biometric information for employment purposes. This information is protected, retained, and used in compliance with the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Records Act, Act 289 of 1925. This act also allows for data sharing between interstate, national, and international systems for criminal identification purposes.
Biometric Information may also be submitted voluntarily for specific programs, such as for identification of individuals with special health care needs, per the Fingerprinting Residents of this State Act, MCL 28.274.
DNA identification profile information may be collected, analyzed, indexed, and retained by MSP, as specified in the DNA Identification Profiling System Act, Act 250 of 1990. This act allows DNA profiles to be used for law enforcement identification purposes or to assist in the recovery or identification of human remains or missing persons. If personal identifiers are removed, it may also be used or shared for academic, research, statistical analysis, or protocol development purposes.
The following notice will be given to all individuals who provide a DNA sample (MSP FORM BID-016):
At the time a DNA sample is taken, please be advised:
(a) That, except as otherwise provided by law, your DNA sample or DNA profile, or both, shall be destroyed or expunged, as appropriate, if the charge for which the sample was obtained has been dismissed or resulted in acquittal, or no charge was filed within the limitations period.
(b) That your DNA sample or profile, or both, will not be destroyed or expunged, as appropriate, if MSP determines you are otherwise obligated to submit a sample or if it is evidence relating to another individual that would otherwise be retained under MCL 28.176.
(c) That the burden is on the arresting law enforcement agency and the prosecution to request the destruction or expunction of a DNA sample or profile as required under MCL 28.176, not on you.
Here’s what we say
Don’t talk to the police before, during or after your Miranda rights have been read without a lawyer present. If you do limit your information because what you say locks you into what you said. Just because you are not under arrest or being detained does not mean what you say will not be used against you.
Here is some information to review.
Don’t worry, a copy of your DNA has not been sent off to the Government Mountain Storage Facility for permanant storage out of view, or has it?
Legal Counsel and Your Rights
When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.
An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.
Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.
Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.
Research us and then call us.
More Rights You Should Know
Improper Transport of a Firearm in Michigan
Improper Firearms Transport, Storage Laws and Penalties Michigan law makes improper gun transport a misdemeanor crime under MCL 750.227d. Firearms can be confiscated and sometimes not returned, but attorneys can file motions under Michigan Court Rules (MCR) to seek...
Video kept from family shows police force not drugs killed son
police and paramedics inflicted “inhumane acts of violence”A mother has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that, while her son was experiencing a seizure in his Tennessee apartment, police and paramedics inflicted “inhumane acts of violence” on the 23-year-old instead...
Other Articles
Shadow cash is corrupting Michigan courtrooms
The Shadow Cash Threat: Protecting the Integrity of Michigan Courtrooms In recent months, a spotlight has been cast on a hidden influence within the Michigan legal system: "shadow cash." This term refers to third-party litigation funding (TPLF), where outside...
Michigan judge charged in stealing from incapacitated adults
No Good Headline to Lead with HereSummary Federal prosecutors have charged a 36th District Court judge and three associates with orchestrating a long‑running financial scheme that diverted funds from incapacitated adults under court‑appointed guardianship. The...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Prisoner in Possession
Prisoner in Possession of a Controlled SubstanceCase Summary In People v Tadgerson, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed a critical question: does the crime of a prisoner possessing a controlled substance under MCL 800.281(4) require proof of intent, or is it a...
What is Inference Stacking?
What Is Inference Stacking? A Legal ExplanationInference stacking—also called pyramiding of inferences—is a rule of evidence that prohibits courts or juries from building one inference on top of another when the first inference is not supported by direct evidence....
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Murder
Case Summary In People v Jones, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed whether a single act of abuse can support convictions for both first‑degree child abuse and felony murder. The defendant argued that using the same conduct to support both charges violated...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Neglect of Duty
Case Summary In People v Harper, a Wayne County Sheriff’s deputy was charged with neglect of duty after witnessing an inmate escape during his smoke break and taking no action to stop or pursue the prisoner. The prosecution relied on the Sheriff’s Department policy...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Metallic Knuckles
Case Summary In People v Dummer, the defendant challenged Michigan’s metallic‑knuckles statute, arguing that simply possessing the weapon was protected by the Second Amendment. The Michigan Court of Appeals acknowledged that possession of metallic knuckles is...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Election Interference
Case Summary In People v Burkman, defendants created a robocall targeting African American voters during the 2020 election. The call falsely warned that mail‑in voting would expose voters to law‑enforcement tracking, debt collection, and forced vaccinations....
