Privacy Advisory Commission
May 1, 2024
MEMORANDUM
TO: Floyd Mitchell,
Chief of Police
FROM: Frederick Shavies, Deputy Chief
OPD, Bureau of Investigations
SUBJECT: OPD Crime Lab Biometrics
DNA Analysis Technology
2024 Annual Report
DATE: April 11, 2025
Background
Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) 9.64.040: Surveillance Technology “Oversight following City Council approval” requires that for approved surveillance technology items (by the Privacy Advisory Commission per OMC 9.64.020 and by City Council per OMC 9.64.030), city staff must present a written annual surveillance report for Privacy Advisory Commission (PAC). OMC 9.64.040 requires that, after City Council approval of surveillance technology, OPD provide an annual report for PAC review before submitting to City Council. After review by the PAC, the PAC shall make a recommendation to the City Council that considers and articulates:
• The benefits to the community of the surveillance technology outweigh the costs and that civil liberties and civil rights are safeguarded; or
• Reasons that use of the surveillance technology cease; or • P roposed modifications to the corresponding surveillance use policy that will resolve any concerns.
Legislative History
The PAC recommended City Council adoption of the “Oakland Police Department (OPD) Criminalistics Laboratory DNA Instrumentation and Analysis Software Biometric Technology Use Policy on October 1, 2020; following the PAC’s vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88388 C.M.S. on December 1, 2020. This resolution approved OPD’s use of Criminalistics Laboratory DNA Instrumentation and Analysis Software Biometric Technology. An updated Biometric Technology Use Policy and Impact Report were approved along with the required annual report adopted under:
• Resolution No. 89458 C.M.S. filed October 20, 2022
• Resolution No. 89931 C.M.S. filed September 14, 2023
• Resolution No. 90365 C.M.S. filed June 26, 2024
This memorandum is intended to serve to comply with the annual reporting mandate.
2024 Data Details
A. A description of how the surveillance technology was used, including the type and quantity of data gathered or analyzed by the technology:
General Overview
Floyd Mitchell, Chief of Police
OPD Crime Lab Biometrics DNA Analysis Technology 2024 Annual Report Date: April 11, 2025 Page 2
Privacy Advisory Commission
May 1, 2025
The Oakland Police Department (OPD) Criminalistics Laboratory’s (Crime Lab) Forensic Biology/DNA unit utilizes specialized DNA collection and analysis instrumentation and software to perform forensic DNA testing. During this lengthy and complicated process, one step removes and purifies DNA from cells (digestion/extraction), another quantitates how much DNA is present and lastly, by amplifying and analyzing Short Tandem Repeats (STR) in the DNA using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and separated by Capillary Electrophoresis (CE), forensic DNA profiles are generated. Software is involved in the following processes: (i) collection and processing of STR DNA fragment data; (ii) interpretation of DNA data into DNA profiles used for comparison purposes. At the end of all processes, a determination can be made as to whether a DNA sample collected from a crime scene can be associated with a known individual through a comparison of evidentiary (crime scene) and known reference DNA profiles. Statistical weight is provided for all inclusion comparisons.
Specifics: How DNA testing was used in 2024
The Forensic Biology Unit analyzed 352 requests between January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024. Over 1,941 items of evidence were examined, from which 4,283 samples were subjected to digestion and extraction using the Versa and EZ1/2 instruments. Scientist subjected 4,304 samples to quantitation analysis using the SpeedVac, Qiagility, and QuantStudio 5 instruments and 1,599 samples were subjected to amplification and typing methods using the ProFlex and 3500 instruments. The DNA profiles were processed with FaSTR and ArmedXpert software.
B. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with outside entities, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, under what legal standard(s) the information was disclosed, and the justif ication for the disclosure(s):
Discovery to the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office was provided in 27 cases. A standard discovery packet includes the reports, technical and administrative review sheets, case notes, attachments, contact log, resume, interpretation guidelines, photographs, electronic data, and any supporting documents.
C. Where applicable, a breakdown of what physical objects the surveillance technology hardware was installed upon; using general descriptive terms so as not to reveal the specific location of such hardware; for surveillance technology software, a breakdown of what data sources the surveillance technology was applied to :
The Biometric Use Policy covers the specific technology covered. In general, the digestion, quantitation, normalization/amplification, typing, interpretation and databasing are housed in the laboratory of the Police Administration Building (PAB). Database equipment is located in a secure location elsewhere in the PAB as disclosed in the Use Policy. Currently, no equipment resides outside of these locations.
Floyd Mitchell, Chief of Police
OPD Crime Lab Biometrics DNA Analysis Technology 2024 Annual Report Date: April 11, 2025 Page 3
Privacy Advisory Commission
May 1, 2025
D. Where applicable, a breakdown of where the surveillance technology was deployed geographically, by each police area in the relevant year :
All evidence was analyzed at the laboratory located in the PAB. No other locations are authorized. As for the geographic location of crimes, this is not collected by the laboratory in a way that can be disseminated easily. The address may be reported on the request for laboratory services form, but it is not required for analysis to proceed . The laboratory services crimes that occur in all areas of the City of Oakland .
E. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, and an analysis of the technology's adopted use policy and whether it is adequate in protecting civil rights and civil liberties . The analysis shall also identify the race of each person that was subject to the technology’s use. The Privacy Advisory Commission may waive this requirement upon making a determination that the probative value in gathering this information to evaluate t he technology’s impact on privacy interests is outweighed by the City’s administrative burden in collecting or verifying this information and the potential greater invasiveness in capturing such data. If the Privacy Advisory Commission makes such a determination, written findings in support of the determination shall be included in the annual report submitted for City Council review:
No community complaints or concerns were communicated to staff. The laboratory did not receive any complaints through its feedback process.
The laboratory request for services form does not collect race information. It could be argued that requiring information that is not necessary for analysis , such as race, could be biasing; indeed, it would be a great invasion of privacy to capture this data since it is irrelevant to the analyses performed. Furthermore, the race of individuals subject to the DNA analysis technology’s use is not revealed during evaluation of evidence as non- coding regions of DNA are typed and do not contain this information. Therefore, staff recommends that the PAC waive the requirement to identify the race of each person subject to the technology’s use and make a determination that the probative value in gathering this information to evaluate the technology’s impact on privacy interests is outweighed by the potential greater invasiveness in capturing such data.
F. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations or potential violations of the Surveillance Use Policy (SUP), and any actions taken in response unless the release of such information is prohibited by law, including but not limited to confidential personnel file information:
All Forensic Biology personnel and relevant management were required to review and sign that they understood and would abide by the Surveillance Use Policy and the Impact Reports. Under accreditation, the Laboratory actively seeks feedback from its customers and no concerns were conveyed regarding violations or concerns around the SUP. Lastly, the Laboratory has a means to identify risks through Incident Response. Staff are encouraged to participate in Incident Response by filing Incident Alerts where there were concerns. No violations or potential violations were identified by any of these routes.
Floyd Mitchell, Chief of Police
OPD Crime Lab Biometrics DNA Analysis Technology 2024 Annual Report Date: April 11, 2025 Page 4
Privacy Advisory Commission
May 1, 2025
G. Information about any data breaches or other unauthorized access to the data collected by the surveillance technology, including information about the scope of the breach and the actions taken in response:
The laboratory maintains an active security program where the security of alarmed portions of the laboratory are tested and results recorded. There were no unexplained alarm events and there were no faults in the alarmed systems that were tested. There were no breaches to the laboratory space nor to the physical equipment that it houses.
The CODIS server is on a dedicated intranet line that uses encryption on both the sender and receiver ends of any communication from/to the server. There was no indication of security lapses in this system.
NOTE: The use of the term “secure servers” throughout this report, the Biometric Use Policy, and the Surveillance Impact Report is based on working with the Information Technology Department (ITD) in 2020 to develop terminology. ITD is responsible for the preservation, fidelity and security of the data described herein.
H. Information, including crime statistics, that helps the community assess whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purposes :
The efficacy of the OPD Criminalistics Laboratory DNA analysis program is illustrated by citing the following compelling statistics:
The laboratory completed 352 requests in 2024. These are further broken out by crime type in Table 1 below
Table 1: OPD Crime Laboratory DNA Analysis Requests in 2024
Crime Type Number of Requests
Homicide/ Attempted Homicide 92
Sexual Assault/Kidnapping 156
Assault 24
Robbery/Burglary/Auto Theft 16
Hit and run/Carjacking 11
Weapons 43
Cold Case (prior to 2008) 10
Total 352
CODIS hits in 2024 – Eighty-six DNA profiles were uploaded to the CODIS database. The laboratory had one hundred and twenty associations (hits); fifty -eight hits to named individuals whose identity were unknown, five hits to unsolved forensic cases, and fifty- seven hits to previously solved forensic cases.
Thus, forensic DNA analysis is an important tool to investigate and provide potential leads for a variety of crimes that occur in the City of Oakland.
Floyd Mitchell, Chief of Police
OPD Crime Lab Biometrics DNA Analysis Technology 2024 Annual Report Date: April 11, 2025 Page 5
Privacy Advisory Commission
May 1, 2025
I. Statistics and information about public records act requests regarding the relevant subject surveillance technology, including response rates :
There were no public record requests for DNA cases in 2024.
J. Total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source of funding will fund the technology in the coming year:
Procurement of instruments is costly and is typically amortized over many budget cycles.
Ongoing maintenance is imperative to ensure reliability of the instruments is remediated quickly should a problem occur. The reagents/kits and supplies to conduct testing are also steep.
The total costs of procuring and maintaining the equipment are shown by Category of testing and platform below:
Digestion/Extraction
• EZ1: $63,000 to purchase and $3,700 annual maintenance • EZ2: $61,250 to purchase (x2 instruments = $122,500) and $4,500 to maintain; 2 instruments for $9,000 annual maintenance
• Versa 1100: $85,000 to purchase and $5,500 annual maintenance
Liquid Handler
• Qiagility: $33,100 to purchase (x3 instruments = $99,300) and $4,250 to maintain; 3 instruments for $12,750annual maintenance
• Hamilton STARlet: $108,000 to purchase (x2 instruments = $216,000)
DNA Quantitation
• QuantStudio 5: $57,000 to purchase (x2 instruments = $114,000) and $7,530 to maintain; 2 instruments for $15,060 annual maintenance
DNA Normalization / Amplification
SpeedVac: $4,000 to purchase, no maintenance
ProFlex Thermalcyclers: $14,000 to purchase (x2 instruments = $28,000), no maintenance
DNA Typing
3500: $135,000 to purchase, $13,900 annual maintenance
DNA Interpretation
STRmix: $66,000 to upgrade, $21,525 annual maintenance
FaSTR: $37,000 to purchase, $8,750 annual maintenance
ArmedExpert: $15,000 to purchase, no maintenance
The cost of testing reagents/kits was approximately $140,000, however, this does not include consumables such as scalpels, masks, gloves, plastics, slides nor serological test kits.
Total purchase cost (born over several years): $1,110,800 Floyd Mitchell, Chief of Police
OPD Crime Lab Biometrics DNA Analysis Technology 2024 Annual Report Date: April 11, 2025 Page 6
Privacy Advisory Commission
May 1, 2025
Total maintenance cost, 2024 : $90,185
Total testing cost reagents/kits, 2024: $126,000
Estimate of consumables: $150,000
The cost / benefit analysis in the form of Return on Investment (ROI) calculations place the societal cost of each homicide at
K. Any requested modifications to the Surveillance Use Policy and a detailed basis for the request:
The 2024-approved Surveillance Impact Report (SIR) and Biometric Technology Use Policy (SUP) were reviewed. Updates of annual costs in the SIR were made. Whereas the costs resided in the main SIR document, the recommendation is to place the costs into an Appendix so-as to not invalidate the SIR simply due to shifts in expenses. Since these costs are reported to the Privacy Commission annually as part of the mandatory reporting requirement, invalidating the SIR due to cost fluctuations was not reasonable. The Appendix will serve to document the expenses on an annual basis. There are no requests to substantively modify the SIR outside of placing the annual cost updates into an Appendix.
OPD is committed to providing the best services to our community while being transparent and instilling procedural justice through daily police activity. This report is compliance with these OPD commitments. OPD hopes that this report helps to strengthen our trust within the Oakland community.
For any questions with this report, please contact, Criminalistics Laboratory Manager, at [email protected]
.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________________
Reviewed by:
Frederick Shavies, Deputy Chief
OPD, Bureau of Investigations
Prepared by:
Bonnie Cheng, Forensic Biology Unit Supervisor
OPD, Criminalistics Laboratory
Rebecca Jewett, Forensic Biology Unit Technical Leader
OPD, Criminalistics Laboratory
Sandra Sachs, PhD, Crime Lab Manager
OPD, Criminalistics Laboratory
Tracey Jones, Police Services Manager
OPD, Bureau of Risk Management, Research and Planning