document_title: Cascadia subduction zone

question_text: what type of fault is the cascadia subduction zone

text: Cascadia subduction zone

text: History[edit]

text: In the 1960s, underground fractures were uncovered by oil companies in Puget Sound. These were believed to be inactive through the 1990s.[2]

text: In the 1980s, geophysicists Tom Heaton and Hiroo Kanamori of Caltech compared the generally quiet Cascadia to more active subduction zones elsewhere in the Ring of Fire. They found similarities to faults in Chile, Alaska, and Japan's Nankai Trough, locations known for megathrust earthquakes, a conclusion that was met with skepticism from other geophysicists at the time.[3]

text: Oral history[edit]

text: At the time of the 1700 earthquake, there were no written records of the event in Cascadia. Orally-transmitted legends from the Olympic Peninsula area talk of an epic battle between a thunderbird and a whale. Therefore, in a 2005 study, seismologist Ruth Ludwin set out to collect and analyze anecdotes from various First Nations groups. Reports from the Huu-ay-aht,[4] Makah,[4] Hoh,[5] Quileute,[2][5] Yurok,[2] and Duwamish[2] peoples referred to earthquakes and saltwater floods. This collection of data allowed her team to come up with an estimated date range for the event, whose midpoint fell in the year 1701.[4]

text: Ghost forests[edit]

text: During low tide one day in March 1986, paleogeologist Brian Atwater dug along Neah Bay using a nejiri gama, a small hand hoe. Underneath the top layer of sand, he uncovered a distinct plant—arrowgrass—that had grown in a layer of marsh soil. This was proof that the ground had suddenly sunk under sea level, causing saltwater to kill the vegetation. The events had happened so quickly as to cause the top layer of sand to seal away any air, thus preserving the centuries-old plants.[3]

text: In 1987, Atwater mounted another expedition paddling up the Copalis River with Dr. David Yamaguchi, who was then studying the eruptions of Mount St. Helens.[3] The pair happened upon a section of "ghost forest," so-called due to the dead, gray stumps left standing after a sudden inundation of salt water had killed them hundreds of years ago.[5] Originally thought to have died slowly due to a gradual rise in sea level,[6] closer inspection yielded a different story: the land plummeted up to two meters during an earthquake.[5] Having initially tested spruce using tree-ring dating, they found that the stumps were too rotted to count all the outer rings. However, upon having examined those of the western red cedar and comparing them to the living specimens meters away from the banks, they were able to approximate their year of death. There were rings up until the year 1699, indicating that the incident had occurred shortly thereafter. Root samples confirmed their conclusion, narrowing the time frame to the winter of 1699 to 1700.[3][4]

text: As with the arrowgrass site, the banks of the Copalis River are lined with a layer of marsh followed by a layer of sand. Jody Bourgeois and her team went on to demonstrate that the sand cover had originated with a tsunami surge rather than a storm surge.[5]

text: In 1995, an international team led by Alan Nelson of the USGS further corroborated these findings with 85 new samples from the rest of the Pacific Northwest. All along British Columbia, Washington State, and Oregon, the coast had fallen due to a violent earthquake and been covered by sand from the subsequent tsunami.[3]

text: Yet another ghost forest was identified by Gordon Jacoby, a dendrochronologist from Columbia University, 60 feet (18 m) underwater in Lake Washington. Unlike the other trees, these suffered from a landslide rather than a dip in the fault during a separate event around 900 CE.[2]

text: Orphan tsunami[edit]

text: A 1996 study published by seismologist Kenji Satake supplemented the research by Atwater et al. with tsunami evidence across the Pacific.[4] Japanese annals, which have recorded natural disasters since approximately 600 CE,[6] had reports of a sixteen-foot tsunami that struck the coast of Honshu Island during the Genroku.[3][4] Since no earthquake had been observed to produce it, scholars dubbed it an "orphan tsunami."[6] Translating the Japanese calendar, Satake found the incident had taken place around midnight of 27–28 January 1700, ten hours after the earthquake occurred.

text: Geology[edit]

text: The Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) is a 1,000 km (620 mi) long dipping fault that stretches from Northern Vancouver Island to Cape Mendocino in northern California. It separates the Juan de Fuca and North America plates. New Juan de Fuca plate is created offshore along the Juan de Fuca Ridge.[7][8]

text: The Juan de Fuca plate moves toward, and eventually is shoved beneath, the continent (North American plate). The zone separates the Juan de Fuca Plate, Explorer Plate, Gorda Plate, and North American Plate. Here, the oceanic crust of the Pacific Ocean has been sinking beneath the continent for about 200 million years, and currently does so at a rate of approximately 40 mm/yr.[7][8]

text: At depths shallower than 30 km (19 mi) or so, the CSZ is locked by friction while strain slowly builds up as the subduction forces act, until the fault's frictional strength is exceeded and the rocks slip past each other along the fault in a megathrust earthquake. Below 30 km (19 mi) the plate interface exhibits episodic tremor and slip.

text: The width of the Cascadia subduction zone varies along its length, depending on the angle of the subducted oceanic plate, which heats up as it is pushed deeper beneath the continent. As it becomes hotter and more molten, it eventually loses the ability to store mechanical stress and generate earthquakes. On the Hyndman and Wang diagram (not shown, click on reference link below) the "locked" zone is storing up energy for an earthquake, and the "transition" zone, although somewhat plastic, could probably rupture.[9]

text: The Cascadia subduction zone runs from triple junctions at its north and south ends. To the north, just below Haida Gwaii, it intersects the Queen Charlotte Fault and the Explorer Ridge. To the south, just off of Cape Mendocino in California, it intersects the San Andreas Fault and the Mendocino Fracture Zone at the Mendocino Triple Junction.

text: Earthquakes[edit]

text: Earthquake effects[edit]

text: Megathrust earthquakes are the most powerful earthquakes known to occur, and can exceed magnitude 9.0. They occur when enough energy (stress) has accumulated in the "locked" zone of the fault to cause a rupture known as a megathrust earthquake. The magnitude of a megathrust earthquake is proportional to length of the rupture along the fault. The Cascadia Subduction Zone, which forms the boundary between the Juan de Fuca and North American plates, is a very long sloping fault that stretches from mid-Vancouver Island to Northern California.[10]

text: Because of the great length of the fault, the Cascadia Subduction Zone is capable of producing very large earthquakes if rupture occurs along its entire length. Thermal and deformation studies indicate that the region 60 kilometers (about 40 miles) downdip (east) of the deformation front (where plate deformation begins) is fully locked (the plates do not move past each other). Further downdip, there is a transition from fully locked to aseismic sliding.[10]

text: In 1999, a group of Continuous Global Positioning System sites registered a brief reversal of motion of approximately 2 centimeters (0.8 inches) over a 50 kilometer by 300 kilometer (about 30 mile by 200 mile) area. The movement was the equivalent of a 6.7 magnitude earthquake.[11] The motion did not trigger an earthquake and was only detectable as silent, non-earthquake seismic signatures.[12]

text: In 2004, a study conducted by the Geological Society of America analyzed the potential for land subsidence along the Cascadia subduction zone. It postulated that several towns and cities on the west coast of Vancouver Island, such as Tofino and Ucluelet, are at risk for a sudden, earthquake initiated, 1–2 m subsidence.[13]

text: San Andreas Fault connection[edit]

text: Studies of past earthquake traces on both the northern San Andreas Fault and the southern Cascadia subduction zone indicate a correlation in time which may be evidence that quakes on the Cascadia subduction zone may have triggered most of the major quakes on the northern San Andreas during at least the past 3,000 years or so. The evidence also shows the rupture direction going from north to south in each of these time-correlated events. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake seems to have been a major exception to this correlation, however, as it was not preceded by a major Cascadia quake.[14]

text: Earthquake timing[edit]

text:
Great earthquakes

estimated year
interval

2005 source[15]
2003 source[16]
(years)

Y about 9 pm, January 26, 1700 (NS)
780

W 780–1190 CE
880–960 CE
210

U 690–730 CE
550–750 CE
330

S 350–420 CE
250–320 CE
910

N 660-440 BCE
610–450 BCE
400

L 980–890 BCE
910–780 BCE
250

J 1440–1340 BCE
1150–1220 BCE
unknown

text: The last known great earthquake in the northwest was the 1700 Cascadia earthquake. Geological evidence indicates that great earthquakes (> magnitude 8.0) may have occurred sporadically at least seven times in the last 3,500 years, suggesting a return time of about 500 years.[3][4][5] Seafloor core evidence indicates that there have been forty-one subduction zone earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone in the past 10,000 years, suggesting a general average earthquake recurrence interval of only 243 years.[6] Of these 41, nineteen have produced a "full margin rupture," wherein the entire fault opens up.[3] By comparison, similar subduction zones in the world usually have such earthquakes every 100 to 200 years; the longer interval here may indicate unusually large stress buildup and subsequent unusually large earthquake slip.[17]

text: There is also evidence of accompanying tsunamis with every earthquake. One strong line of evidence for these earthquakes is convergent timings for fossil damage from tsunamis in the Pacific Northwest and historical Japanese records of tsunamis.[18]

text: The next rupture of the Cascadia Subduction Zone is anticipated to be capable of causing widespread destruction throughout the Pacific Northwest.[19]

text: Forecasts of the next major earthquake[edit]

text: Prior to the 1980s, scientists thought that the subduction zone just did not generate earthquakes like the other subduction zones around the world, but research by Brian Atwater and Kenji Satake tied together evidence of a large tsunami on the Washington coast with documentation of an orphan tsunami in Japan (a tsunami without an associated earthquake). The two pieces of the puzzle were linked, and they then realized that the subduction zone was more hazardous than previously suggested.

text: In 2009, some geologists predicted a 10% to 14% probability that the Cascadia Subduction Zone will produce an event of magnitude 9.0 or higher in the next 50 years.[20] In 2010, studies suggested that the risk could be as high as 37% for earthquakes of magnitude 8.0 or higher[21][22]

text: Geologists and civil engineers have broadly determined that the Pacific Northwest region is not well prepared for such a colossal earthquake. The earthquake is expected to be similar to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, because the rupture is expected to be as long as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. The resulting tsunami might reach heights of approximately 30 meters (100 ft).[20] FEMA estimates some 13,000 fatalities from such an event, with another 27,000 injured. It predicts that a million people will be displaced, with yet another 2.5 million requiring food and water. An estimated 1/3 of public safety workers will not respond to the disaster due to a collapse in infrastructure and a desire to ensure the safety of themselves and their loved ones.[6] Other analyses predict that even a magnitude 6.7 earthquake in Seattle would result in 7,700 dead and injured, $33 billion in damages, 39,000 buildings largely or totally destroyed, and 130 simultaneous fires.[2]

text: Cascade Volcanic Arc[edit]

text: The Cascade Volcanic Arc is a continental volcanic arc that extends from northern California to the coastal mountains of British Columbia.[1] The arc consists of a series of Quaternary age stratovolcanoes that grew on top of pre-existing geologic materials that ranged from Miocene volcanics to glacial ice.[1] The Cascade Volcanic arc is located approximately 100 km inland from the coast, and forms a north-to-south chain of peaks that average over 3,000 m (10,000 ft) in elevation.[1] The major peaks from south to north include:

text:
Lassen Peak and Mt. Shasta (California)
Crater Lake (Mazama), Three Sisters, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Hood (Oregon)
Mt. Adams, Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier, Glacier Peak, Mt. Baker (Washington)
Mt. Garibaldi and Mt. Meager (British Columbia)

text: The most active volcanoes in the chain include Mount St. Helens, Mt. Baker, Lassen Peak, and Mt. Hood. St. Helens captured worldwide attention when it erupted catastrophically in 1980.[1] St. Helens continues to rumble, albeit more quietly, emitting occasional steam plumes and experiencing small earthquakes, both signs of continuing magmatic activity.[1]

text: Most of the volcanoes have a main, central vent from which the most recent eruptions have occurred. The peaks are composed of layers of solidified andesitic to dacitic magma, and the more siliceous (and explosive) rhyolite.

text: The volcanoes above the subduction zone include:

text:
Silverthrone Caldera
Mount Meager
Mount Cayley
Mount Garibaldi
Mount Baker
Glacier Peak
Mount Rainier

Mount St. Helens
Mount Adams
Mount Hood
Mount Jefferson
Three Sisters
Newberry Volcano

Mount Mazama (Crater Lake)
Mount McLoughlin
Medicine Lake Volcano
Mount Shasta
Lassen Peak
Black Butte


document_title: U.S. history of alcohol minimum purchase age by state

question_text: when did drinking age change to 21 in illinois

root

text: The alcohol laws of the United States regarding minimum age for purchase have changed over time. The history is given in the table below. Unless otherwise noted, if different alcohol categories have different minimum purchase ages, the age listed below is set at the lowest age given (e.g. if the purchase age is 18 for beer and 21 for wine or spirits, as was the case in several states, the age in the table will read as "18", not "21"). In addition, the purchase age is not necessarily the same as the minimum age for consumption of alcoholic beverages, although they have often been the same.

tag: p

text: As one can see in the table below, there has been much volatility in the states' drinking ages since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. Shortly after the ratification of the 21st amendment in December, most states set their purchase ages at 21 since that was the Voting age at the time. Most of these limits remained constant until the early 1970s. From 1969 to 1976, some 30 states lowered their purchase ages, generally to 18. This was primarily because the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1971 with the 26th amendment. A lot of states started to lower their minimum drinking age in response, most of this occurring in 1972 or 1973.[1][2][3] Twelve states kept their purchase ages at 21 since repeal of Prohibition and never changed them.

text: From 1976 to 1983, several states voluntarily raised their purchase ages to 19 (or, less commonly, 20 or 21), in part to combat drunk driving fatalities.[citation needed] In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required states to raise their ages for purchase and public possession to 21 by October 1986 or lose 10% of their federal highway funds. By mid-1988, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had raised their purchase ages to 21 (but not Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, see Additional Notes below). South Dakota and Wyoming were the final two states to comply with the age 21 mandate. The current drinking age of 21 remains a point of contention among many Americans, because of it being higher than the age of majority (18 in most states) and higher than the drinking ages of most other countries. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act is also seen as a congressional sidestep of the tenth amendment. Although debates have not been highly publicized, a few states have proposed legislation to lower their drinking age,[4] while Guam has raised its drinking age to 21 in July 2010.[5]

text:
State
Pre-Prohibition
(prior to 1919)
Post-Prohibition
(after 1933)
1970s / 26th Amendment
(adopted in 1971)
1980s /
Drinking Age Act of 1984
21st century

Alabama
Pre 1881:
None
1881:
21 (none with consent of parent)[6]
21
1975:
Lowered to 19[7]
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21 (no one underage is allowed consumption Section 28-1)

Alaska
?
21[7]
1970:
Lowered to 19[9]
1984:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause (if born before January 1, 1965)[10][11]
21

Arizona
?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 19[12][13]
1985:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Arkansas
Pre 1925:
None[7]
1925:
21[7]
21
21[14]
21[8]
21

California
Pre 1891:
Regulated by municipality/county (common age was 16)[15][16][17]
1891:
18 (statewide)[18]
1933:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21 (except small amounts for religious ceremonies)

Colorado
None[11]
1945:
18: for beer
21: for wine and liquor[7]
18[19]
Raised to 21 in 1987[8]
21

Connecticut
?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 18[20]
1982:
Raised to 19
1983:
Raised to 20
1985:
Raised to 21[21]
21 (exemptions: (1) a person over age eighteen who is an employee or permit holder under section 30-90a and who possesses alcoholic liquor in the course of such person’s employment or business, (2) a minor who possesses alcoholic liquor on the order of a practicing physician, or (3) a minor who possesses alcoholic liquor while accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse of the minor, who has attained the age of twenty-one. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to burden a person’s exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state in violation of subsection (a) of section 52-571b.[22]

Delaware
?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 20[13]
1984:
Raised to 21[8]
21

District of Columbia
?
18: for beer and wine[11]
21: for liquor[23][24]
18: for beer and wine[13][24]
21: for liquor
1986:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause.[25][26]
21

Florida
?
18[7]
1980:
19[27]
1985:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause[27]
21[28]

Georgia
?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 18[12]
1984:
Raised to 19[14]
1985:
Raised to 20[14]
1986:
Raised to 21[14]
21

Hawaii
?
21[7]
1972:
Lowered to 18[13]
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Idaho
?
20: for beer[29][30]
21: for wine and liquor[11][31]
1972:
Lowered to 19 (all)[13][32]
1987:
Raised to 21 in 1987 (Apr 11) with grandfather clause[8][33]
21

Illinois
1872:
Age of majority
(none with written consent of parent)[34]
pre 1961: Age of majority 1961: Raised to 21[35]
1973:
Lowered to 19: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[36]
1980:
Raised to 21[37]
21

Indiana
?
Post-1934:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

Iowa
?
21[7]
1972:
Lowered to 19 in 1972 (Jul 1)
1973:
Lowered to 18 in 1973 (Jul 1)
1978:
Raised to 19 in 1978 (Jul 1)[38]
1986:
Raised to 21 in 1986 (Jul 1) with grandfather clause.[14][38]
21

Kansas
?
1949:
18: for beer and wine with less than 4% ABV
21: for liquor[7]
18: for beer and wine with less than 4% ABV[14]
21: for beer and wine with 4% ABV or more[14]
21: for liquor[14][19]
1985:
Raised to 21[8]
21 (However, anyone under 21 may consume cereal malt beverages with parental supervision on their own property)

Kentucky
?
1938:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

Louisiana
?
As of 1948:
18[13]
18[19]
1987:
Raised to 21 de jure in 1987,[8]
but de facto age was still 18 until 1995 due to a sale loophole.
1995:
De facto age raised to 21 in 1995 when loophole was closed.[39]
1996:
In 1996, briefly lowered by Louisiana Supreme Court to 18 until it reversed its decision, raising to 21 three months later.[40]
Other exceptions still remain.[41]
21 (Exceptions to state law include:[42]

For an established religious purpose;
When a person under twenty-one years of age is accompanied by a parent, spouse, or legal guardian twenty-one years of age or older;
For medical purposes when purchased as an over the counter medication, or when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital, or medical institution;
In a private residence, which shall include a residential dwelling and up to twenty contiguous acres, on which the dwelling is located, owned by the same person who owns the dwelling;
The sale, handling, transport, or service in dispensing of any alcoholic beverage pursuant to lawful ownership of an establishment or to lawful employment of a person under twenty-one years of age by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of beverage alcohol.)

Maine
?
21[7]
1969:
Lowered to 20
1972:
Lowered to 18[12]
1977:
Raised to 20[8][43]
1985:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Maryland
?
21[7]
1974:
Lowered to 18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[44][45]
1982:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause[8][46]
21 (however anyone can drink when parents, spouses, teachers are present)

Massachusetts
?
21[11]
1973:
Lowered to 18
1979:
Raised to 20 in 1979 (Apr 16)[47][48][49]
Raised to 21 in 1985[8]
21

Michigan
?
21[7]
1972:
Lowered to 18 in 1972 (Jan 1)[50]
1978:
Raised to 19 in 1978 (Dec 3)[51][52]
1978:
Raised to 21 in 1978 (Dec 21), 18 days later.[8]
First state to raise age to 21 since it was lowered
21

Minnesota
?
21[11]
1973:
Lowered to 18 (June 1)
1976:
Raised to 19 (Sept 1)[53]
First state to raise age after lowering.
1986:
Raised to 21[54]
21

Mississippi
?
1966:
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[7]
(alcohol not legalized until 1966)
18[19]
Raised to 21 in 1986[8]
21

Missouri
?
1945:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21

Montana
?
21[11]
1971:
Lowered to 19[55]
1973:
Lowered to 18[56][57]
1979:
Raised to 19
1987:
Raised to 21[8][58]
21

Nebraska
?
21[59]
1969:
Lowered to 20
1972:
Lowered to 19[59]
1980:
Raised to 20[14]
1985:
Raised to 21[14]
21

Nevada
?
1933:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21

New Hampshire
?
21[11]
1973:
Lowered to 18[60]
1979:
Raised to 20
1985:
Raised to 21[8][21]
21

New Jersey
Before 1880:
None
Post-1880:
18 (penalties only against businesses)[61][62][63]
21[citation needed]
1973:
Lowered to 18[12]
1980:
Raised to 19
1983:
Raised to 21[8][64]
21

New Mexico
?
1934:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

New York
21
18[65]
18
1982:
Raised to 19 in 1982 (Dec)
1985:
Raised to 21 in 1985 (Dec)[21][66][67]
21

North Carolina
?
18[11]
18: for beer and wine[19]
21: for liquor
1983:
19: for beer and wine
21: for liquor
1986:
Raised to 21 in 1986 (Sep 1)[8][26]
21

North Dakota
?
1936:
21[7]
21[14]
21[68]
21

Ohio
?
1935:
18: for 3.2% ABW beer
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor[69]
18: for 3.2% ABW beer
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor
1982 (Aug. 19 to Oct. 1):
19: for 3.2% ABW beer[14]
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor[14]
1982 (From Oct. 1):
19: beer
21: wine and liquor[70]
1988:
21[14]
21 (However, anyone can drink with parents or legal-age spouse)

Oklahoma
?
Men:
21
Women:
18: 3.2% ABW beer
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor[71]
1976:
Lowered to 18 (for 3.2% ABW beer) for both sexes in 1976 (Dec)[72]
Last state to lower the drinking age.
1983:
Raised to 21[11][73]
21

Oregon
?
1933:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21

Pennsylvania
?
1935:
21[7]
21
21[8][52]
21

Rhode Island
?
21[11]
1970:
Lowered to 18[12][74]
1980:
Raised to 19
1981:
Raised to 20
1984:
Raised to 21[21]
21

South Carolina
21[75]
1935:
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[7]
18: for beer and wine[19]
21: for liquor
1984:
19: for beer and wine[7]
21: for liquor
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21

South Dakota
?
1934:
21 (all)
1939:
Lowered to 18: for 3.2% beer
Raised to 19: for 3.2% beer[76]
1972:
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[13]
1984:
19: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[8]
1988:
Raised to 21[58]
21

Tennessee
Pre 1881:
None
1881:
21[77]
21[7]
1964:
Lowered to 18[7]
1979:
Raised to 19
1984:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Texas
Pre 1909:
21
None (with written permission of parent or guardian)
Post 1909:
21[78][79]
21[7]
1973:
Lowered to 18[80]
1981:
Raised to 19[81]
1986:
Raised to 21 in 1986 (Sep 1)[8][26]
21

Utah
?
1935:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

Vermont
?
21[7]
1971:
Lowered to 18[82][83]
1986:
Raised to 21[21][83]
21

Virginia
?
21[84]
1974:
Lowered to 18: for beer and wine
(21: for liquor remained)[84]
1981:
Raised to 19 for off-premises consumption
1983:
Raised to 19 (all beer)
1985:
Raised to 21[84]
21

Washington
"Age of majority"
since 1877[85]
21[citation needed]
21
21[8]
21

West Virginia
?
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[11]
1972:
Lowered to 18 (all)[86]
1983:
Raised to 19
(& 21 for non-residents)[8][43]
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Wisconsin
1839–1866:
18: for wine and liquor
None: for beer
Post-1866:
21 (all)[87]
18: for beer
21: for wine and spirits
1957:
21: for residents of bordering states with age limit 21.[88]
1963:
Raised to 21 (off-premises beer sales, remained 18 for on-premises).[88]
1972:
Lowered to 18 (all) in 1972 (Mar)[88]
1977:
Border state restriction lifted.[88]
1984:
Raised to 19
1986:
Raised to 21 (September 1, 1986)[88]
21 (however anyone can drink when parents, spouses, teachers are present)[citation needed]

Wyoming
?
21[7]
1973:
Lowered to 19[13]
1988:
Raised to 21 in 1988 (Jul 1)[89][90]
Last state to raise de jure drinking age to 21
21

American Samoa
?
?
?
21?
21[91]

Northern Mariana Islands
–
–
?
21?
21[92]

Puerto Rico
?
18
18
Kept at 18
despite 10% highway funding
penalty under Drinking Age Act.
18[93]

Virgin Islands
?
?
?
18
18[94]

Guam
?
21?
18
18
Raised to 21 in 2010[5]

tag: table

text: Additional notes[edit]

text:
Contrary to popular belief, since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, not all states specifically prohibit minors' and young adults' consumption of alcohol in private settings. That is because the federal law is concerned only with purchase and public possession, not private consumption, and contains several exceptions. As of January 1, 2007, 14 states and the District of Columbia ban underage consumption outright, 19 states do not specifically ban underage consumption outright, and 17 states have family member or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws. Federal law explicitly provides for religious, medical, employment and private club possession exceptions; as of 2005, 31 states have family member or location exceptions to their underage possession laws.[41]
In the 1960s the age for buying or drinking beer and wine in the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) was 18; the age for hard liquor was 21.[23][24] Residents from Virginia and Maryland would often drive to D.C. to obtain alcohol. In Louisiana, the 1987 law raising the age from 18 to 21 was deliberately written solely to comply with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 to avoid losing highway funding, while still allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink as before. Not only did it still allow 18- to 20-year-olds to consume in private, it contained a major loophole allowing bars and stores to sell alcohol to 18- to 20-year-olds without penalty (despite purchase being technically illegal) which meant that the de facto age was still 18.[39] In other words, the drinking age was 21 only on paper. This loophole was closed in 1995, but in 1996 the Louisiana Supreme Court declared a drinking age of 21 unconstitutional.[39] That briefly lowered the de jure purchase age to 18, causing an uproar which prompted the Louisiana Supreme Court to reverse its decision, raising the age to 21 three months later.[40] Other exceptions still remain to this day, including drinking in a private residence,[41] and Louisiana still has some of the most liberal general alcohol laws of any state.
Some states were "dry" well before national Prohibition was enacted in 1919, in some cases since achieving statehood. Also, some states did not become fully "wet" until several years after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 (e.g. Mississippi in 1966). Since 1966, all states and territories of the USA have been "wet", but dry counties and towns still exist in some states.

tag: ul


document_title: The Trials of Apollo

question_text: when does the third book of the trials of apollo come out

text: The Trials of Apollo

text: Synopsis[edit]

text: The series follows the trials of the god Apollo, who has been turned into a human as punishment from his father and king of the gods Zeus. Zeus is angry with Apollo for a variety of reasons, most notably for the younger god's allowing his Roman descendant Octavian to rise to power during The Heroes of Olympus series by giving him his blessing. The final book of The Heroes of Olympus, The Blood of Olympus, takes place about six months before the beginning of The Trials of Apollo.

text: Books[edit]

text: The Hidden Oracle[edit]

text: The Hidden Oracle is the first book of the series. It is told in first-person by the main character Apollo, and uses haiku for chapter titles. The book was released on May 3, 2016.[2]

text: The book opens with Apollo landing in an alley in New York City—in the form of a mortal teenager named Lester Papadopoulos—and meeting Meg McCaffrey, a homeless daughter of Demeter. Believing that he must only undertake some simple quest to regain his immortality, Apollo/Lester and Meg travel to Camp Half-Blood, where they learn most of the world's oracles have stopped working. The two undertake a quest to locate and protect the one remaining oracle, hoping also to learn how to help the other oracles and to regain Apollo's immortality.[4]

text: The Dark Prophecy[edit]

text: The Dark Prophecy is the second book in the series. It was released on May 2, 2017.

text: The book continues the story of Apollo as the mortal Lester, as he leaves the safety of Camp Half-Blood and journeys across North America to restore the remaining four Oracles and defeat the triumvirate of roman emperors-turned-Gods, while also being helped by Leo Valdez, the now-mortal Calypso and Festus the bronze dragon.[5]

text: The Burning Maze[edit]

text: The Burning Maze is the third book in the series. It is scheduled to be released on May 1, 2018.[citation needed]

text: Supplementary works[edit]

text: Camp Half-Blood Confidential[edit]

text: A companion book titled Percy Jackson: Camp Half-Blood Confidential was released on May 2, 2017.[6]


document_title: DNA profiling

question_text: when was dna technology first used in forensics

question_tokens: when was dna technology first used in forensics

text: DNA profiling

text: Background[edit]

text: The modern process of DNA profiling was developed in 1984[5] by Sir Alec Jeffreys[6][7][8][9] while working in the Department of Genetics at the University of Leicester.[10]

text: Although 99.9% of human DNA sequences are the same in every person, enough of the DNA is different that it is possible to distinguish one individual from another, unless they are monozygotic ("identical") twins.[11] DNA profiling uses repetitive ("repeat") sequences that are highly variable,[11] called variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs), in particular short tandem repeats (STRs), also known as microsatellites, and minisatellites. VNTR loci are very similar between closely related individuals, but are so variable that unrelated individuals are extremely unlikely to have the same VNTRs.

text: DNA profiling process[edit]

text: Developed by Professor of Genetics Sir Alec Jeffreys,[12] the process begins with a sample of an individual's DNA (typically called a "reference sample"). A common method of collecting a reference sample is the use of a buccal swab, which is easy, non-invasive and cheap. When this is not available (e.g. because a court order is needed but not obtainable) other methods may need to be used to collect a sample of blood, saliva, semen, vaginal lubrication, or other appropriate fluid or tissue from personal items (e.g. a toothbrush, razor) or from stored samples (e.g. banked sperm or biopsy tissue). Samples obtained from blood relatives (related by birth, not marriage) can provide an indication of an individual's profile, as could human remains that had been previously profiled.

text: A reference sample is then analyzed to create the individual's DNA profile using one of a number of techniques, discussed below. The DNA profile is then compared against another sample to determine whether there is a genetic match.

text: RFLP analysis[edit]

text: The first methods for finding out genetics used for DNA profiling involved RFLP analysis. DNA is collected from cells, such as a blood sample, and cut into small pieces using a restriction enzyme (a restriction digest). This generates thousands of DNA fragments of differing sizes as a consequence of variations between DNA sequences of different individuals. The fragments are then separated on the basis of size using gel electrophoresis.

text: The separated fragments are then transferred to a nitrocellulose or nylon filter; this procedure is called a Southern blot. The DNA fragments within the blot are permanently fixed to the filter, and the DNA strands are denatured. Radiolabeled probe molecules are then added that are complementary to sequences in the genome that contain repeat sequences. These repeat sequences tend to vary in length among different individuals and are called variable number tandem repeat sequences or VNTRs. The probe molecules hybridize to DNA fragments containing the repeat sequences and excess probe molecules are washed away. The blot is then exposed to an X-ray film. Fragments of DNA that have bound to the probe molecules appear as fluoresent bands on the film.

text: The Southern blot technique is laborious, and requires large amounts of undegraded sample DNA. Also, Karl Brown's original technique looked at many minisatellite loci at the same time, increasing the observed variability, but making it hard to discern individual alleles (and thereby precluding paternity testing). These early techniques have been supplanted by PCR-based assays.

text: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis[edit]

text: Developed by Kary Mullis in 1983, a process was reported by which specific portions of the sample DNA can be amplified almost indefinitely (Saiki et al. 1985, 1988). This has revolutionized the whole field of DNA study. The process, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), mimics the biological process of DNA replication, but confines it to specific DNA sequences of interest. With the invention of the PCR technique, DNA profiling took huge strides forward in both discriminating power and the ability to recover information from very small (or degraded) starting samples.

text: PCR greatly amplifies the amounts of a specific region of DNA. In the PCR process, the DNA sample is denatured into the separate individual polynucleotide strands through heating. Two oligonucleotide DNA primers are used to hybridize to two corresponding nearby sites on opposite DNA strands in such a fashion that the normal enzymatic extension of the active terminal of each primer (that is, the 3’ end) leads toward the other primer. PCR uses replication enzymes that are tolerant of high temperatures, such as the thermostable Taq polymerase. In this fashion, two new copies of the sequence of interest are generated. Repeated denaturation, hybridization, and extension in this fashion produce an exponentially growing number of copies of the DNA of interest. Instruments that perform thermal cycling are readily available from commercial sources. This process can produce a million-fold or greater amplification of the desired region in 2 hours or less.

text: Early assays such as the HLA-DQ alpha reverse dot blot strips grew to be very popular due to their ease of use, and the speed with which a result could be obtained. However, they were not as discriminating as RFLP analysis. It was also difficult to determine a DNA profile for mixed samples, such as a vaginal swab from a sexual assault victim.

text: However, the PCR method was readily adaptable for analyzing VNTR, in particular STR loci. In recent years, research in human DNA quantitation has focused on new "real-time" quantitative PCR (qPCR) techniques. Quantitative PCR methods enable automated, precise, and high-throughput measurements. Inter-laboratory studies have demonstrated the importance of human DNA quantitation on achieving reliable interpretation of STR typing and obtaining consistent results across laboratories.

text: STR analysis[edit]

text: The system of DNA profiling used today is based on PCR and uses simple sequences[13] or short tandem repeats (STR). This method uses highly polymorphic regions that have short repeated sequences of DNA (the most common is 4 bases repeated, but there are other lengths in use, including 3 and 5 bases). Because unrelated people almost certainly have different numbers of repeat units, STRs can be used to discriminate between unrelated individuals. These STR loci (locations on a chromosome) are targeted with sequence-specific primers and amplified using PCR. The DNA fragments that result are then separated and detected using electrophoresis. There are two common methods of separation and detection, capillary electrophoresis (CE) and gel electrophoresis.

text: Each STR is polymorphic, but the number of alleles is very small. Typically each STR allele will be shared by around 5 - 20% of individuals. The power of STR analysis comes from looking at multiple STR loci simultaneously. The pattern of alleles can identify an individual quite accurately. Thus STR analysis provides an excellent identification tool. The more STR regions that are tested in an individual the more discriminating the test becomes.

text: From country to country, different STR-based DNA-profiling systems are in use. In North America, systems that amplify the CODIS 20[14] core loci are almost universal, whereas in the United Kingdom the DNA-17 17 loci system (which is compatible with The National DNA Database) is in use, and Australia uses 18 core markers.[15] Whichever system is used, many of the STR regions used are the same. These DNA-profiling systems are based on multiplex reactions, whereby many STR regions will be tested at the same time.

text: The true power of STR analysis is in its statistical power of discrimination. Because the 20 loci that are currently used for discrimination in CODIS are independently assorted (having a certain number of repeats at one locus does not change the likelihood of having any number of repeats at any other locus), the product rule for probabilities can be applied. This means that, if someone has the DNA type of ABC, where the three loci were independent, we can say that the probability of having that DNA type is the probability of having type A times the probability of having type B times the probability of having type C. This has resulted in the ability to generate match probabilities of 1 in a quintillion (1x1018) or more. However, DNA database searches showed much more frequent than expected false DNA profile matches.[16] Moreover, since there are about 12 million monozygotic twins on Earth, the theoretical probability is not accurate.

text: In practice, the risk of contaminated-matching is much greater than matching a distant relative, such as contamination of a sample from nearby objects, or from left-over cells transferred from a prior test. The risk is greater for matching the most common person in the samples: Everything collected from, or in contact with, a victim is a major source of contamination for any other samples brought into a lab. For that reason, multiple control-samples are typically tested in order to ensure that they stayed clean, when prepared during the same period as the actual test samples. Unexpected matches (or variations) in several control-samples indicates a high probability of contamination for the actual test samples. In a relationship test, the full DNA profiles should differ (except for twins), to prove that a person was not actually matched as being related to their own DNA in another sample.

text: AmpFLP[edit]

text: Another technique, AmpFLP, or amplified fragment length polymorphism was also put into practice during the early 1990s. This technique was also faster than RFLP analysis and used PCR to amplify DNA samples. It relied on variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) polymorphisms to distinguish various alleles, which were separated on a polyacrylamide gel using an allelic ladder (as opposed to a molecular weight ladder). Bands could be visualized by silver staining the gel. One popular focus for fingerprinting was the D1S80 locus. As with all PCR based methods, highly degraded DNA or very small amounts of DNA may cause allelic dropout (causing a mistake in thinking a heterozygote is a homozygote) or other stochastic effects. In addition, because the analysis is done on a gel, very high number repeats may bunch together at the top of the gel, making it difficult to resolve. AmpFLP analysis can be highly automated, and allows for easy creation of phylogenetic trees based on comparing individual samples of DNA. Due to its relatively low cost and ease of set-up and operation, AmpFLP remains popular in lower income countries.

text: DNA family relationship analysis[edit]

text: Using PCR technology, DNA analysis is widely applied to determine genetic family relationships such as paternity, maternity, siblingship and other kinships.

text: During conception, the father’s sperm cell and the mother’s egg cell, each containing half the amount of DNA found in other body cells, meet and fuse to form a fertilized egg, called a zygote. The zygote contains a complete set of DNA molecules, a unique combination of DNA from both parents. This zygote divides and multiplies into an embryo and later, a full human being.

text: At each stage of development, all the cells forming the body contain the same DNA—half from the father and half from the mother. This fact allows the relationship testing to use all types of all samples including loose cells from the cheeks collected using buccal swabs, blood or other types of samples.

text: There are predictable inheritance patterns at certain locations (called loci) in the human genome, which have been found to be useful in determining identity and biological relationships. These loci contain specific DNA markers that scientists use to identify individuals. In a routine DNA paternity test, the markers used are short tandem repeats (STRs), short pieces of DNA that occur in highly differential repeat patterns among individuals.

text: Each person’s DNA contains two copies of these markers—one copy inherited from the father and one from the mother. Within a population, the markers at each person’s DNA location could differ in length and sometimes sequence, depending on the markers inherited from the parents.

text: The combination of marker sizes found in each person makes up his/her unique genetic profile. When determining the relationship between two individuals, their genetic profiles are compared to see if they share the same inheritance patterns at a statistically conclusive rate.

text: For example, the following sample report from this commercial DNA paternity testing laboratory Universal Genetics signifies how relatedness between parents and child is identified on those special markers:

text:
DNA marker
Mother
Child
Alleged father

D21S11
28, 30
28, 31
29, 31

D7S820
9, 10
10, 11
11, 12

TH01
14, 15
14, 16
15, 16

D13S317
7, 8
7, 9
8, 9

D19S433
14, 16.2
14, 15
15, 17

text: The partial results indicate that the child and the alleged father’s DNA match among these five markers. The complete test results show this correlation on 16 markers between the child and the tested man to enable a conclusion to be drawn as to whether or not the man is the biological father.

text: Each marker is assigned with a Paternity Index (PI), which is a statistical measure of how powerfully a match at a particular marker indicates paternity. The PI of each marker is multiplied with each other to generate the Combined Paternity Index (CPI), which indicates the overall probability of an individual being the biological father of the tested child relative to a randomly selected man from the entire population of the same race. The CPI is then converted into a Probability of Paternity showing the degree of relatedness between the alleged father and child.

text: The DNA test report in other family relationship tests, such as grandparentage and siblingship tests, is similar to a paternity test report. Instead of the Combined Paternity Index, a different value, such as a Siblingship Index, is reported.

text: The report shows the genetic profiles of each tested person. If there are markers shared among the tested individuals, the probability of biological relationship is calculated to determine how likely the tested individuals share the same markers due to a blood relationship.

text: Y-chromosome analysis[edit]

text: Recent innovations have included the creation of primers targeting polymorphic regions on the Y-chromosome (Y-STR), which allows resolution of a mixed DNA sample from a male and female or cases in which a differential extraction is not possible. Y-chromosomes are paternally inherited, so Y-STR analysis can help in the identification of paternally related males. Y-STR analysis was performed in the Sally Hemings controversy to determine if Thomas Jefferson had sired a son with one of his slaves. The analysis of the Y-chromosome yields weaker results than autosomal chromosome analysis. The Y male sex-determining chromosome, as it is inherited only by males from their fathers, is almost identical along the patrilineal line. This leads to a less precise analysis than if autosomal chromosomes were testing, because of the random matching that occurs between pairs of chromosomes as zygotes are being made.[17]

text: Mitochondrial analysis[edit]

text: For highly degraded samples, it is sometimes impossible to get a complete profile of the 13 CODIS STRs. In these situations, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is sometimes typed due to there being many copies of mtDNA in a cell, while there may only be 1-2 copies of the nuclear DNA. Forensic scientists amplify the HV1 and HV2 regions of the mtDNA, and then sequence each region and compare single-nucleotide differences to a reference. Because mtDNA is maternally inherited, directly linked maternal relatives can be used as match references, such as one's maternal grandmother's daughter's son. In general, a difference of two or more nucleotides is considered to be an exclusion. Heteroplasmy and poly-C differences may throw off straight sequence comparisons, so some expertise on the part of the analyst is required. mtDNA is useful in determining clear identities, such as those of missing people when a maternally linked relative can be found. mtDNA testing was used in determining that Anna Anderson was not the Russian princess she had claimed to be, Anastasia Romanov.

text: mtDNA can be obtained from such material as hair shafts and old bones/teeth. Control mechanism based on interaction point with data. This can be determined by tooled placement in sample.[citation needed]

text: DNA databases[edit]

text: An early application of a DNA database was the compilation of a Mitochondrial DNA Concordance,[18] prepared by Kevin W. P. Miller and John L. Dawson at the University of Cambridge from 1996 to 1998[19] from data collected as part of Miller's PhD thesis. There are now several DNA databases in existence around the world. Some are private, but most of the largest databases are government-controlled. The United States maintains the largest DNA database, with the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) holding over 13 million records as of May 2018.[20] The United Kingdom maintains the National DNA Database (NDNAD), which is of similar size, despite the UK's smaller population. The size of this database, and its rate of growth, are giving concern to civil liberties groups in the UK, where police have wide-ranging powers to take samples and retain them even in the event of acquittal.[21] The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition partially addressed these concerns with part 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, under which DNA samples must be deleted if suspects are acquitted or not charged, except in relation to certain (mostly serious and/or sexual) offences.

text: The U.S. Patriot Act of the United States provides a means for the U.S. government to get DNA samples from suspected terrorists. DNA information from crimes is collected and deposited into the CODIS database, which is maintained by the FBI. CODIS enables law enforcement officials to test DNA samples from crimes for matches within the database, providing a means of finding specific biological profiles associated with collected DNA evidence.[22]

text: When a match is made from a national DNA databank to link a crime scene to an offender having provided a DNA sample to a databank, that link is often referred to as a cold hit. A cold hit is of value in referring the police agency to a specific suspect but is of less evidential value than a DNA match made from outside the DNA Databank.[23]

text: FBI agents cannot legally store DNA of a person not convicted of a crime. DNA collected from a suspect not later convicted must be disposed of and not entered into the database. In 1998, a man residing in the UK was arrested on accusation of burglary. His DNA was taken and tested, and he was later released. Nine months later, this man's DNA was accidentally and illegally entered in the DNA database. New DNA is automatically compared to the DNA found at cold cases and, in this case, this man was found to be a match to DNA found at a rape and assault case one year earlier. The government then prosecuted him for these crimes. During the trial the DNA match was requested to be removed from the evidence because it had been illegally entered into the database. The request was carried out.[24]

text: The DNA collected from victims of rape is often stored for years until matched with the perpetrator's, usually when committing another crime. In 2014, Congress extended a bill that helps states deal with "a backlog" of unexamined evidence.[25]

text: Considerations when evaluating DNA evidence[edit]

text: In the early days of the use of genetic fingerprinting as criminal evidence, juries were often swayed by spurious statistical arguments by defense lawyers along these lines: Given a match that had a 1 in 5 million probability of occurring by chance, the lawyer would argue that this meant that in a country of say 60 million people there were 12 people who would also match the profile. This was then translated to a 1 in 12 chance of the suspect's being the guilty one. This argument is not sound unless the suspect was drawn at random from the population of the country. In fact, a jury should consider how likely it is that an individual matching the genetic profile would also have been a suspect in the case for other reasons. Also, different DNA analysis processes can reduce the amount of DNA recovery if the procedures are not properly done. Therefore, the number of times a piece of evidence is sampled can diminish the DNA collection efficiency. Another spurious statistical argument is based on the false assumption that a 1 in 5 million probability of a match automatically translates into a 1 in 5 million probability of innocence and is known as the prosecutor's fallacy.

text: When using RFLP, the theoretical risk of a coincidental match is 1 in 100 billion (100,000,000,000), although the practical risk is actually 1 in 1000 because monozygotic twins are 0.2% of the human population.[citation needed] Moreover, the rate of laboratory error is almost certainly higher than this, and often actual laboratory procedures do not reflect the theory under which the coincidence probabilities were computed. For example, the coincidence probabilities may be calculated based on the probabilities that markers in two samples have bands in precisely the same location, but a laboratory worker may conclude that similar—but not precisely identical—band patterns result from identical genetic samples with some imperfection in the agarose gel. However, in this case, the laboratory worker increases the coincidence risk by expanding the criteria for declaring a match. Recent studies have quoted relatively high error rates, which may be cause for concern.[26] In the early days of genetic fingerprinting, the necessary population data to accurately compute a match probability was sometimes unavailable. Between 1992 and 1996, arbitrary low ceilings were controversially put on match probabilities used in RFLP analysis rather than the higher theoretically computed ones.[27] Today, RFLP has become widely disused due to the advent of more discriminating, sensitive and easier technologies.

text: Since 1998, the DNA profiling system supported by The National DNA Database in the UK is the SGM+ DNA profiling system that includes 10 STR regions and a sex-indicating test. STRs do not suffer from such subjectivity and provide similar power of discrimination (1 in 1013 for unrelated individuals if using a full SGM+ profile). Figures of this magnitude are not considered to be statistically supportable by scientists in the UK; for unrelated individuals with full matching DNA profiles a match probability of 1 in a billion is considered statistically supportable. However, with any DNA technique, the cautious juror should not convict on genetic fingerprint evidence alone if other factors raise doubt. Contamination with other evidence (secondary transfer) is a key source of incorrect DNA profiles and raising doubts as to whether a sample has been adulterated is a favorite defense technique. More rarely, chimerism is one such instance where the lack of a genetic match may unfairly exclude a suspect.

text: Evidence of genetic relationship[edit]

text: It is possible to use DNA profiling as evidence of genetic relationship, although such evidence varies in strength from weak to positive. Testing that shows no relationship is absolutely certain. Further, while almost all individuals have a single and distinct set of genes, ultra-rare individuals, known as "chimeras", have at least two different sets of genes. There have been two cases of DNA profiling that falsely suggested that a mother was unrelated to her children.[28] This happens when two eggs are fertilized at the same time and fuse together to create one individual instead of twins.

text: Fake DNA evidence[edit]

text: In one case, a criminal planted fake DNA evidence in his own body: John Schneeberger raped one of his sedated patients in 1992 and left semen on her underwear. Police drew what they believed to be Schneeberger's blood and compared its DNA against the crime scene semen DNA on three occasions, never showing a match. It turned out that he had surgically inserted a Penrose drain into his arm and filled it with foreign blood and anticoagulants.

text: The functional analysis of genes and their coding sequences (open reading frames [ORFs]) typically requires that each ORF be expressed, the encoded protein purified, antibodies produced, phenotypes examined, intracellular localization determined, and interactions with other proteins sought.[29] In a study conducted by the life science company Nucleix and published in the journal Forensic Science International, scientists found that an in vitro synthesized sample of DNA matching any desired genetic profile can be constructed using standard molecular biology techniques without obtaining any actual tissue from that person. Nucleix claims they can also prove the difference between non-altered DNA and any that was synthesized.[30]

text: In the case of the Phantom of Heilbronn, police detectives found DNA traces from the same woman on various crime scenes in Austria, Germany, and France—among them murders, burglaries and robberies. Only after the DNA of the "woman" matched the DNA sampled from the burned body of a male asylum seeker in France did detectives begin to have serious doubts about the DNA evidence. It was eventually discovered that DNA traces were already present on the cotton swabs used to collect the samples at the crime scene, and the swabs had all been produced at the same factory in Austria. The company's product specification said that the swabs were guaranteed to be sterile, but not DNA-free.

text: DNA evidence as evidence in criminal trials[edit]

text:
Evidence

Part of the common law series

Types of evidence

Testimony
Documentary
Real (physical)
Digital
Exculpatory
Inculpatory
Demonstrative
Eyewitness identification
Genetic (DNA)
Lies

Relevance

Burden of proof
Laying a foundation
Materiality
Public policy exclusions
Spoliation
Character
Habit
Similar fact

Authentication

Chain of custody
Judicial notice
Best evidence rule
Self-authenticating document
Ancient document
Hague Evidence Convention

Witnesses

Competence
Privilege
Direct examination
Cross-examination
Redirect
Impeachment
Recorded recollection
Expert witness
Dead Man's Statute

Hearsay and exceptions

in English law
in United States law
Confessions
Business records
Excited utterance
Dying declaration
Party admission
Ancient document
Declaration against interest
Present sense impression
Res gestae
Learned treatise
Implied assertion

Other common law areas

Contract
Tort
Property
Wills, trusts and estates
Criminal law

v
t
e

text: Familial DNA searching[edit]

text: Familial DNA searching (sometimes referred to as "familial DNA" or "familial DNA database searching") is the practice of creating new investigative leads in cases where DNA evidence found at the scene of a crime (forensic profile) strongly resembles that of an existing DNA profile (offender profile) in a state DNA database but there is not an exact match.[31][32] After all other leads have been exhausted, investigators may use specially developed software to compare the forensic profile to all profiles taken from a state's DNA database to generate a list of those offenders already in the database who are most likely to be a very close relative of the individual whose DNA is in the forensic profile.[33] To eliminate the majority of this list when the forensic DNA is a man's, crime lab technicians conduct Y-STR analysis. Using standard investigative techniques, authorities are then able to build a family tree. The family tree is populated from information gathered from public records and criminal justice records. Investigators rule out family members' involvement in the crime by finding excluding factors such as sex, living out of state or being incarcerated when the crime was committed. They may also use other leads from the case, such as witness or victim statements, to identify a suspect. Once a suspect has been identified, investigators seek to legally obtain a DNA sample from the suspect. This suspect DNA profile is then compared to the sample found at the crime scene to definitively identify the suspect as the source of the crime scene DNA.

text: Familial DNA database searching was first used in an investigation leading to the conviction of Jeffrey Gafoor of the murder of Lynette White in the United Kingdom on 4 July 2003. DNA evidence was matched to Gafoor's nephew, who at 14 years old had not been born at the time of the murder in 1988. It was used again in 2004[34] to find a man who threw a brick from a motorway bridge and hit a lorry driver, killing him. DNA found on the brick matched that found at the scene of a car theft earlier in the day, but there were no good matches on the national DNA database. A wider search found a partial match to an individual; on being questioned, this man revealed he had a brother, Craig Harman, who lived very close to the original crime scene. Harman voluntarily submitted a DNA sample, and confessed when it matched the sample from the brick.[35] Currently, familial DNA database searching is not conducted on a national level in the United States, where states determine how and when to conduct familial searches. The first familial DNA search with a subsequent conviction in the United States was conducted in Denver, Colorado, in 2008, using software developed under the leadership of Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey and Denver Police Department Crime Lab Director Gregg LaBerge.[36] California was the first state to implement a policy for familial searching under then Attorney General, now Governor, Jerry Brown.[37] In his role as consultant to the Familial Search Working Group of the California Department of Justice, former Alameda County Prosecutor Rock Harmon is widely considered to have been the catalyst in the adoption of familial search technology in California. The technique was used to catch the Los Angeles serial killer known as the "Grim Sleeper" in 2010.[38] It wasn't a witness or informant that tipped off law enforcement to the identity of the "Grim Sleeper" serial killer, who had eluded police for more than two decades, but DNA from the suspect's own son. The suspect's son had been arrested and convicted in a felony weapons charge and swabbed for DNA the year before. When his DNA was entered into the database of convicted felons, detectives were alerted to a partial match to evidence found at the "Grim Sleeper" crime scenes. David Franklin Jr., also known as the Grim Sleeper, was charged with ten counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.[39] More recently, familial DNA led to the arrest of 21-year-old Elvis Garcia on charges of sexual assault and false imprisonment of a woman in Santa Cruz in 2008.[40] In March 2011 Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell announced that Virginia would begin using familial DNA searches.[41] Other states are expected to follow.

text: At a press conference in Virginia on March 7, 2011, regarding the East Coast Rapist, Prince William County prosecutor Paul Ebert and Fairfax County Police Detective John Kelly said the case would have been solved years ago if Virginia had used familial DNA searching. Aaron Thomas, the suspected East Coast Rapist, was arrested in connection with the rape of 17 women from Virginia to Rhode Island, but familial DNA was not used in the case.[42]

text: Critics of familial DNA database searches argue that the technique is an invasion of an individual's 4th Amendment rights.[43] Privacy advocates are petitioning for DNA database restrictions, arguing that the only fair way to search for possible DNA matches to relatives of offenders or arrestees would be to have a population-wide DNA database.[24] Some scholars have pointed out that the privacy concerns surrounding familial searching are similar in some respects to other police search techniques,[44] and most have concluded that the practice is constitutional.[45] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Pool (vacated as moot) suggested that this practice is somewhat analogous to a witness looking at a photograph of one person and stating that it looked like the perpetrator, which leads law enforcement to show the witness photos of similar looking individuals, one of whom is identified as the perpetrator.[46] Regardless of whether familial DNA searching was the method used to identify the suspect, authorities always conduct a normal DNA test to match the suspect's DNA with that of the DNA left at the crime scene.

text: Critics also claim that racial profiling could occur on account of familial DNA testing. In the United States, the conviction rates of racial minorities are much higher than that of the overall population. It is unclear whether this is due to discrimination from police officers and the courts, as opposed to a simple higher rate of offence among minorities. Arrest-based databases, which are found in the majority of the United States, lead to an even greater level of racial discrimination. An arrest, as opposed to conviction, relies much more heavily on police discretion.[24]

text: For instance, investigators with Denver District Attorney's Office successfully identified a suspect in a property theft case using a familial DNA search. In this example, the suspect's blood left at the scene of the crime strongly resembled that of a current Colorado Department of Corrections prisoner.[47] Using publicly available records, the investigators created a family tree. They then eliminated all the family members who were incarcerated at the time of the offense, as well as all of the females (the crime scene DNA profile was that of a male). Investigators obtained a court order to collect the suspect's DNA, but the suspect actually volunteered to come to a police station and give a DNA sample. After providing the sample, the suspect walked free without further interrogation or detainment. Later confronted with an exact match to the forensic profile, the suspect pleaded guilty to criminal trespass at the first court date and was sentenced to two years probation.

text: In Italy a familiar DNA search has been done to solve the case of the murder of Yara Gambirasio whose body was found in the bush[clarification needed] three months after her disappearance. A DNA trace was found on the underwear of the murdered teenage near and a DNA sample was requested from a person who lived near the municipality of Brembate di Sopra and a common male ancestor was found in the DNA sample of a young man not involved in the murder. After a long investigation the father of the supposed killer was identified as Giuseppe Guerinoni, a deceased man, but his two sons born from his wife were not related to the DNA samples found on the body of Yara. After three and a half years the DNA found on the underwear of the deceased girl was matched with Massimo Giuseppe Bosetti who was arrested and accused of the murder of the 13-year-old girl.In the summer of 2016 Bosetti was found guilty and sentenced to life by the Corte d'assise of Bergamo.

text: Partial matches[edit]

text: Partial DNA matches are not searches[clarification needed] themselves, but are the result of moderate stringency CODIS searches that produce a potential match that shares at least one allele at every locus.[48] Partial matching does not involve the use of familial search software, such as those used in the UK and United States, or additional Y-STR analysis, and therefore often misses sibling relationships. Partial matching has been used to identify suspects in several cases in the UK and United States,[49] and has also been used as a tool to exonerate the falsely accused. Darryl Hunt was wrongly convicted in connection with the rape and murder of a young woman in 1984 in North Carolina.[50] Hunt was exonerated in 2004 when a DNA database search produced a remarkably close match between a convicted felon and the forensic profile from the case. The partial match led investigators to the felon’s brother, Willard E. Brown, who confessed to the crime when confronted by police. A judge then signed an order to dismiss the case against Hunt. In Italy, partial matching has been used in the controversial murder of Yara Gambirasio, a child found dead about a month after her presumed kidnapping. In this case, the partial match has been used as the only incriminating element against the defendant, Massimo Bossetti, who has been subsequently condemned for the murder (waiting appeal by the Italian Supreme Court).

text: Surreptitious DNA collecting[edit]

text: Police forces may collect DNA samples without a suspect's knowledge, and use it as evidence. The legality of the practice has been questioned in Australia.[citation needed]

text: In the United States, it has been accepted, courts often ruling that there is no expectation of privacy, citing California v. Greenwood (1988), in which the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. Critics of this practice underline that this analogy ignores that "most people have no idea that they risk surrendering their genetic identity to the police by, for instance, failing to destroy a used coffee cup. Moreover, even if they do realize it, there is no way to avoid abandoning one's DNA in public."[51]

text: The United States Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v. King (2013) that DNA sampling of prisoners arrested for serious crimes is constitutional.[52][53][54]

text: In the UK, the Human Tissue Act 2004 prohibits private individuals from covertly collecting biological samples (hair, fingernails, etc.) for DNA analysis, but exempts medical and criminal investigations from the prohibition.[55]

text: England and Wales[edit]

text: Evidence from an expert who has compared DNA samples must be accompanied by evidence as to the sources of the samples and the procedures for obtaining the DNA profiles.[56] The judge must ensure that the jury must understand the significance of DNA matches and mismatches in the profiles. The judge must also ensure that the jury does not confuse the match probability (the probability that a person that is chosen at random has a matching DNA profile to the sample from the scene) with the probability that a person with matching DNA committed the crime. In 1996 R v. Doheny[57] Phillips LJ gave this example of a summing up, which should be carefully tailored to the particular facts in each case:

text: Members of the Jury, if you accept the scientific evidence called by the Crown, this indicates that there are probably only four or five white males in the United Kingdom from whom that semen stain could have come. The Defendant is one of them. If that is the position, the decision you have to reach, on all the evidence, is whether you are sure that it was the Defendant who left that stain or whether it is possible that it was one of that other small group of men who share the same DNA characteristics.

text: Juries should weigh up conflicting and corroborative evidence, using their own common sense and not by using mathematical formulae, such as Bayes' theorem, so as to avoid "confusion, misunderstanding and misjudgment".[58]

text: Presentation and evaluation of evidence of partial or incomplete DNA profiles[edit]

text: In R v Bates,[59] Moore-Bick LJ said:

text: We can see no reason why partial profile DNA evidence should not be admissible provided that the jury are made aware of its inherent limitations and are given a sufficient explanation to enable them to evaluate it. There may be cases where the match probability in relation to all the samples tested is so great that the judge would consider its probative value to be minimal and decide to exclude the evidence in the exercise of his discretion, but this gives rise to no new question of principle and can be left for decision on a case by case basis. However, the fact that there exists in the case of all partial profile evidence the possibility that a "missing" allele might exculpate the accused altogether does not provide sufficient grounds for rejecting such evidence. In many there is a possibility (at least in theory) that evidence that would assist the accused and perhaps even exculpate him altogether exists, but that does not provide grounds for excluding relevant evidence that is available and otherwise admissible, though it does make it important to ensure that the jury are given sufficient information to enable them to evaluate that evidence properly.[60]

text: DNA testing in the United States[edit]

text: There are state laws on DNA profiling in all 50 states of the United States.[61] Detailed information on database laws in each state can be found at the National Conference of State Legislatures website.[62]

text: Development of artificial DNA[edit]

text: In August 2009, scientists in Israel raised serious doubts concerning the use of DNA by law enforcement as the ultimate method of identification. In a paper published in the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics, the Israeli researchers demonstrated that it is possible to manufacture DNA in a laboratory, thus falsifying DNA evidence. The scientists fabricated saliva and blood samples, which originally contained DNA from a person other than the supposed donor of the blood and saliva.[63]

text: The researchers also showed that, using a DNA database, it is possible to take information from a profile and manufacture DNA to match it, and that this can be done without access to any actual DNA from the person whose DNA they are duplicating. The synthetic DNA oligos required for the procedure are common in molecular laboratories.[63]

text: The New York Times quoted the lead author, Daniel Frumkin, saying, "You can just engineer a crime scene ... any biology undergraduate could perform this".[63] Frumkin perfected a test that can differentiate real DNA samples from fake ones. His test detects epigenetic modifications, in particular, DNA methylation[64]. Seventy percent of the DNA in any human genome is methylated, meaning it contains methyl group modifications within a CpG dinucleotide context. Methylation at the promoter region is associated with gene silencing. The synthetic DNA lacks this epigenetic modification, which allows the test to distinguish manufactured DNA from genuine DNA.[63]

text: It is unknown how many police departments, if any, currently use the test. No police lab has publicly announced that it is using the new test to verify DNA results.[65]

text: Cases[edit]

text:
In 1986, Richard Buckland was exonerated, despite having admitted to the rape and murder of a teenager near Leicester, the city where DNA profiling was first developed. This was the first use of DNA fingerprinting in a criminal investigation, and the first to prove a suspect's innocence.[66] The following year Colin Pitchfork was identified as the perpetrator of the same murder, in addition to another, using the same techniques that had cleared Buckland.[67]
In 1987, genetic fingerprinting was used in criminal court for the first time in the trial of a man accused of unlawful intercourse with a mentally handicapped 14-year-old female who gave birth to a baby.[68]
In 1987, Florida rapist Tommie Lee Andrews was the first person in the United States to be convicted as a result of DNA evidence, for raping a woman during a burglary; he was convicted on November 6, 1987, and sentenced to 22 years in prison.[69][70]
In 1988, Timothy Wilson Spencer was the first man in Virginia to be sentenced to death through DNA testing, for several rape and murder charges. He was dubbed "The South Side Strangler" because he killed victims on the south side of Richmond, Virginia. He was later charged with rape and first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. He was executed on April 27, 1994. David Vasquez, initially convicted of one of Spencer's crimes, became the first man in America exonerated based on DNA evidence.
In 1989, Chicago man Gary Dotson was the first person whose conviction was overturned using DNA evidence.
In 1991, Allan Legere was the first Canadian to be convicted as a result of DNA evidence, for four murders he had committed while an escaped prisoner in 1989. During his trial, his defense argued that the relatively shallow gene pool of the region could lead to false positives.
In 1992, DNA evidence was used to prove that Nazi doctor Josef Mengele was buried in Brazil under the name Wolfgang Gerhard.
In 1992, DNA from a palo verde tree was used to convict Mark Alan Bogan of murder. DNA from seed pods of a tree at the crime scene was found to match that of seed pods found in Bogan's truck. This is the first instance of plant DNA admitted in a criminal case.[71][72][73]
In 1993, Kirk Bloodsworth was the first person to have been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, whose conviction was overturned using DNA evidence.
The 1993 rape and murder of Mia Zapata, lead singer for the Seattle punk band The Gits, was unsolved nine years after the murder. A database search in 2001 failed, but the killer's DNA was collected when he was arrested in Florida for burglary and domestic abuse in 2002.
The science was made famous in the United States in 1994 when prosecutors heavily relied on DNA evidence allegedly linking O. J. Simpson to a double murder. The case also brought to light the laboratory difficulties and handling procedure mishaps that can cause such evidence to be significantly doubted.
In 1994, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) detectives successfully tested hairs from a cat known as Snowball, and used the test to link a man to the murder of his wife, thus marking for the first time in forensic history the use of non-human animal DNA to identify a criminal (plant DNA was used in 1992, see above).
In 1994, the claim that Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia was tested after her death using samples of her tissue that had been stored at a Charlottesville, Virginia hospital following a medical procedure. The tissue was tested using DNA fingerprinting, and showed that she bore no relation to the Romanovs.[74]
In 1994, Earl Washington, Jr., of Virginia had his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment a week before his scheduled execution date based on DNA evidence. He received a full pardon in 2000 based on more advanced testing.[75] His case is often cited by opponents of the death penalty.
In 1995, the British Forensic Science Service carried out its first mass intelligence DNA screening in the investigation of the Naomi Smith murder case.
In 1998, Richard J. Schmidt was convicted of attempted second-degree murder when it was shown that there was a link between the viral DNA of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) he had been accused of injecting in his girlfriend and viral DNA from one of his patients with AIDS. This was the first time viral DNA fingerprinting had been used as evidence in a criminal trial.
In 1999, Raymond Easton, a disabled man from Swindon, England, was arrested and detained for seven hours in connection with a burglary. He was released due to an inaccurate DNA match. His DNA had been retained on file after an unrelated domestic incident some time previously.[76]
In 2000 Frank Lee Smith was proved innocent by DNA profiling of the murder of an eight-year-old girl after spending 14 years on death row in Florida, USA. However he had died of cancer just before his innocence was proven.[77] In view of this the Florida state governor ordered that in future any death row inmate claiming innocence should have DNA testing.[75]
In May 2000 Gordon Graham murdered Paul Gault at his home in Lisburn, Northern Ireland. Graham was convicted of the murder when his DNA was found on a sports bag left in the house as part of an elaborate ploy to suggest the murder occurred after a burglary had gone wrong. Graham was having an affair with the victim's wife at the time of the murder. It was the first time Low Copy Number DNA was used in Northern Ireland.[78]
In 2001, Wayne Butler was convicted for the murder of Celia Douty. It was the first murder in Australia to be solved using DNA profiling.[79][80]
In 2002, the body of James Hanratty, hanged in 1962 for the "A6 murder", was exhumed and DNA samples from the body and members of his family were analysed. The results convinced Court of Appeal judges that Hanratty's guilt, which had been strenuously disputed by campaigners, was proved "beyond doubt".[81] Paul Foot and some other campaigners continued to believe in Hanratty's innocence and argued that the DNA evidence could have been contaminated, noting that the small DNA samples from items of clothing, kept in a police laboratory for over 40 years "in conditions that do not satisfy modern evidential standards", had had to be subjected to very new amplification techniques in order to yield any genetic profile.[82] However, no DNA other than Hanratty's was found on the evidence tested, contrary to what would have been expected had the evidence indeed been contaminated.[83]
In 2002, DNA testing was used to exonerate Douglas Echols, a man who was wrongfully convicted in a 1986 rape case. Echols was the 114th person to be exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing.
In August 2002, Annalisa Vincenzi was shot dead in Tuscany. Bartender Peter Hamkin, 23, was arrested, in Merseyside in March 2003 on an extradition warrant heard at Bow Street Magistrates' Court in London to establish whether he should be taken to Italy to face a murder charge. DNA "proved" he shot her, but he was cleared on other evidence.[84]
In 2003, Welshman Jeffrey Gafoor was convicted of the 1988 murder of Lynette White, when crime scene evidence collected 12 years earlier was re-examined using STR techniques, resulting in a match with his nephew.[85] This may be the first known example of the DNA of an innocent yet related individual being used to identify the actual criminal, via "familial searching".
In March 2003, Josiah Sutton was released from prison after serving four years of a twelve-year sentence for a sexual assault charge. Questionable DNA samples taken from Sutton were retested in the wake of the Houston Police Department's crime lab scandal of mishandling DNA evidence.
In June 2003, because of new DNA evidence, Dennis Halstead, John Kogut and John Restivo won a re-trial on their murder conviction, their convictions were struck down and they were released.[86] The three men had already served eighteen years of their thirty-plus-year sentences.
The trial of Robert Pickton (convicted in December 2003) is notable in that DNA evidence is being used primarily to identify the victims, and in many cases to prove their existence.
In 2004, DNA testing shed new light into the mysterious 1912 disappearance of Bobby Dunbar, a four-year-old boy who vanished during a fishing trip. He was allegedly found alive eight months later in the custody of William Cantwell Walters, but another woman claimed that the boy was her son, Bruce Anderson, whom she had entrusted in Walters' custody. The courts disbelieved her claim and convicted Walters for the kidnapping. The boy was raised and known as Bobby Dunbar throughout the rest of his life. However, DNA tests on Dunbar's son and nephew revealed the two were not related, thus establishing that the boy found in 1912 was not Bobby Dunbar, whose real fate remains unknown.[87]
In 2005, Gary Leiterman was convicted of the 1969 murder of Jane Mixer, a law student at the University of Michigan, after DNA found on Mixer's pantyhose was matched to Leiterman. DNA in a drop of blood on Mixer's hand was matched to John Ruelas, who was only four years old in 1969 and was never successfully connected to the case in any other way. Leiterman's defense unsuccessfully argued that the unexplained match of the blood spot to Ruelas pointed to cross-contamination and raised doubts about the reliability of the lab's identification of Leiterman.[88][89][90]
In December 2005, Evan Simmons was proven innocent of a 1981 attack on an Atlanta woman after serving twenty-four years in prison. Mr. Clark is the 164th person in the United States and the fifth in Georgia to be freed using post-conviction DNA testing.
In November 2008, Anthony Curcio was arrested for masterminding one of the most elaborately planned armored car heists in history. DNA evidence linked Curcio to the crime.[91]
In March 2009, Sean Hodgson—convicted of 1979 killing of Teresa De Simone, 22, in her car in Southampton—was released after tests proved DNA from the scene was not his. It was later matched to DNA retrieved from the exhumed body of David Lace. Lace had previously confessed to the crime but was not believed by the detectives. He served time in prison for other crimes committed at the same time as the murder and then committed suicide in 1988.[92]
In 2012, familial DNA profiling led to Alice Collins Plebuch's unexpected discovery that her ancestral bloodline was not purely Irish, as she had previously been led to believe, but that her heritage also contained European Jewish, Middle Eastern and Eastern European. This led her into an extensive genealogy investigation which resulted in her uncovering the genetic family of her adopted father.[93][94]
In 2016 Anthea Ring, abandoned as baby, was able to use a DNA sample and DNA matching database to discover her deceased mother’s identity and roots in County Mayo, Ireland. A recently developed forensic test was subsequently used to capture DNA from saliva left on old stamps and envelopes by her suspected father, uncovered through painstaking genealogy research. The DNA in the first three samples was too degraded to use. However, on the fourth, more than enough DNA was found. The test, which has a degree of accuracy acceptable in UK courts, proved that a man named Patrick Coyne was her biological father.[95][96]
In 2018 the Buckskin girl (a body found in 1981 in Ohio) was identified as Marcia King from Arkansas using DNA genealogical techniques[97]
In 2018 Joseph James DeAngelo was arrested as the main suspect for the Golden State Killer using DNA and genealogy techniques.[98]

text: DNA evidence as evidence to prove rights of succession to British titles[edit]

text: DNA testing is used to establish the right of succession to British titles.[99]

text: Cases:

text:
Baron Moynihan
Pringle baronets