skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 127668 Find in a Library
Title: What Authority Should Police Have To Detain Suspects To Take Samples? (From DNA and Criminal Justice, P 77-84, 1990, Julia Vernon and Ben Selinger, eds. -- see NCJ-127660)
Author(s): S Ireland
Date Published: 1990
Page Count: 8
Sponsoring Agency: Australian Institute of Criminology
Canberra ACT, 2601, Australia
Sale Source: Australian Institute of Criminology
GPO Box 2944
Canberra ACT, 2601,
Type: Research (Theoretical)
Language: English
Country: Australia
Annotation: As DNA profiling becomes a more widely accepted technique and refined even further, it will yield increasing amounts of information about individuals that can have a dramatic impact upon law enforcement. However, one legal area which is under scrutiny and is likely to evolve, is the authority of police to collect samples from suspects in order to perform the necessary analysis.
Abstract: A comparison between statutory provisions in New South Wales and Great Britain reveal wide differences in philosophy related to this issue. In New South Wales, the law allows police to obtain samples from a suspect only after charges have been made, while the law in Great Britain allows police access before charges for the dual purpose of inculpation and exculpation. The British law, which distinguishes between intimate and non-intimate samples, acts as a mechanism to confirm or disprove involvement in a crime, while the law in New South Wales is based only upon proving involvement. Unlike Great Britain, New South Wales does not require advance notice from prosecution and defense of intended expert evidence; such provisions could reduce disputes over forensic evidence and reduce court backlogs by simplifying some proceedings. 2 notes and 3 references
Main Term(s): DNA fingerprinting; Prisoner's rights
Index Term(s): Foreign laws; Great Britain/United Kingdom; New South Wales
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.