How Familial DNA Led to an Arrest — and a Legal Fight — in the Allison Feldman Murder Case

PHOENIX — More than a decade after 31-year-old Allison Feldman was found dead in her south Scottsdale home in February 2015, a case built in part on familial DNA evidence produced both an arrest and a contentious legal battle. Ian Mitcham, now 50, was arrested on April 10, 2018, after investigators linked a partial crime‑scene DNA profile to him through a familial search of offender records. His trial began on Nov. 12.

The discovery and arrest

Court records show Feldman's then-boyfriend entered her locked home with a key and found her body in a hallway. When police later developed a partial DNA profile from the scene and a routine database check produced no direct match, investigators ran a familial DNA search that returned a partial match to a first‑degree relative who was incarcerated. That lead ultimately pointed to Mitcham, who at the time of his arrest had a criminal history and was living with family while working at a deli. Authorities said they had no documented link between Mitcham and Feldman prior to the DNA lead.

What familial DNA searching is

Familial DNA searching compares a partial crime‑scene DNA profile against convicted‑offender and arrestee databases to identify profiles that share an unusually high number of genetic markers, suggesting a close biological relationship to the unknown perpetrator. As the U.S. Justice Department’s Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative explains, these searches use statistical modeling to assess whether shared alleles are more likely the result of kinship than chance.

Key point: A familial match is a lead, not proof. Investigators must follow up with traditional policing and obtain the suspect’s DNA for confirmation before using it in court.

Where and when familial searches are used

Arizona is among the roughly 16 states that run active familial DNA programs. Policies vary by state, but they commonly restrict familial searches to serious, unsolved violent crimes and require that other investigative leads be exhausted. Arizona’s Department of Public Safety requires a written request documenting the case’s violent nature, its age (typically at least one year), exhausted leads (including elimination of consensual partners where applicable), and a commitment to investigate any leads the lab provides.

Privacy concerns and criticism

Privacy advocates caution that familial searches, and broader forensic genetic genealogy, can expose sensitive genetic information about relatives who never submitted DNA. Critics also argue that databases disproportionately composed of people of color could lead to disparate investigative scrutiny. Civil‑rights groups have challenged some programs on these grounds, seeking stronger limits and oversight.

How familial DNA complicated the Feldman prosecution

Although familial searching produced the lead that identified Mitcham, the DNA evidence later became the focus of a legal dispute. During a prior DUI arrest, two vials of blood were collected from Mitcham: one used for DUI testing and a second retained for independent testing at the defendant’s request. Mitcham signed a notice saying the second vial would be destroyed after 90 days if he did not request independent testing. That vial, however, remained in police custody and was analyzed after Mitcham became a suspect. The resulting DNA profile matched the crime‑scene sample; a buccal swab later obtained under warrant matched as well.

In January 2023 a Maricopa County judge suppressed the DNA profile from the retained vial, ruling the post‑DUI DNA analysis exceeded the scope of consent and violated the Fourth Amendment. Prosecutors appealed; an appellate court reversed that suppression in August 2023. The Arizona Supreme Court heard arguments in September 2024 and in December 2024 ruled the DNA could be used at trial, concluding that although the initial profiling from the retained vial was an unreasonable search, the "inevitable discovery" doctrine applied. The court noted that, after Mitcham pleaded guilty to unrelated felony charges and was sentenced to prison, Arizona law required the corrections system to collect a blood sample for DNA profiling — meaning the state would have inevitably obtained his profile through lawful means.

Other cases and context

Familial and genealogical methods have helped solve cold cases nationwide. For example, a familial search of a sexual‑assault kit profile helped identify Tony Tyrone Reed in connection with a 2016 killing, leading to his arrest in 2020. In other investigations, genetic genealogy has aided in identifying previously unknown decedents and in high‑profile prosecutions such as the investigation that led to the arrest of Bryan Kohberger.

Takeaway

Familial DNA searching is a powerful investigative tool that can revive stalled cases and produce leads that traditional methods may miss. But its use raises persistent legal and ethical questions about privacy, consent, and fairness. Courts and legislatures continue to wrestle with how to balance public safety benefits against Fourth Amendment protections and civil‑rights concerns.

Sources

This article synthesizes reporting from FOX10 Phoenix and public documents from the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the U.S. Justice Department’s Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, and the State of New York Division of Criminal Justice Services.