Allison Feldman murder case: Here's what to know about familial DNA

PHOENIX - It has been just over 10 years since a woman was found dead by her boyfriend at her Scottsdale home, and on Nov. 12, trial began for Ian Mitcham, the man who police say murdered Allison Feldman.

Feldman's murder case took years to solve, and Mitcham was only found via familial DNA. Here's what to know about familial DNA, and how in this very case, it caused problems for prosecutors at one point.

Who is Allison Feldman?

Allison Feldman was a 31-year-old who was found dead at her south Scottsdale home in February 2015 by her then-boyfriend.

Dig deeper:

According to investigators, the boyfriend told police he went to Allison's home to check on her welfare.

"The front door to the house was locked. [The boyfriend] used a key and went inside," investigators wrote.

The boyfriend, per court documents, found Allison dead in a hallway.

Who is Ian Mitcham?

According to court documents related to the case, Mitcham, who is now 50 years old, was arrested on April 10, 2018 in connection with Feldman's murder.

Mitcham had a criminal history, and at the time of his arrest, he was working at a deli, and was living with members of his family.

When Mitcham was arrested, investigators said they have not found a connection between him and Feldman.

Read More: Allison Feldman murder: Here's what to know about the case

How did police find Mitcham?

We reported in 2021 that Mitcham was found via familial DNA.

The backstory:

The familial DNA search happened after Mark Brnovich approved the move during his time as Arizona Attorney General. 

A partial DNA profile was developed from the crime scene by investigators, and familial DNA was used to find a partial match to a first-degree relative who was in prison at the time.

What is familial DNA?

Per a flyer released by the Arizona Department of Public Safety's Scientific Analysis Bureau, familial DNA analysis involves "a deliberate search of Arizona Convicted Offender and Arrestee DNA profiles to identify candidates who are potential close biological relatives to an unknowing perpetrator."

Dig deeper:

The flyer states Arizona is one of 16 states that have active familial DNA programs. Other western U.S. states with similar programs include California, Colorado, Texas, and Wyoming.

Officials note that a "large portion of the familial searching and analysis focuses on the male DNA" passed down through the father's side.

How does familial DNA searching work?

According to a document released by the U.S. Justice Department's Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, it is possible to "conduct an independent search to identify potential relatives of the alleged perpetrator" of a crime when a routine DNA database search reveals that no qualifying person's profile matches that of the crime's perpetrator.

"This search is based on the number of shared genetic characteristics (i.e., alleles) and the rarity of those shared alleles in human populations," read a portion of the document. "A familial search relies on mathematical modeling specific to the DNA database being utilized. This modeling determines whether an observed similarity between two DNA profiles is more likely the result of kinship or mere chance."

What types of cases are eligible for familial DNA searching?

Depending on the state, that answer could be different.

Big picture view:

Documents released by the State of New York's Division of Criminal Justice Services listed a number of offenses that are eligible for familial DNA searching, including:

• Crimes that present a significant public safety threat
• Class A felony offenses, as defined in Penal Law Article 130 (Sex Offenses), Article 135 (Kidnapping, Coercion and Related Offenses), Article 150 (Arson), or Article 490 (Terrorism).
• A Penal Law Article 130 (Sex offenses) offense that is defined as a violent felony under Penal Law Section 70.02.
• Penal Law Article 125 (Homicide and Related Offenses)

In Arizona, documents provided by the Department of Public Safety's Scientific Analysis Bureau states that written requests for familial search made to the DPS Director must include documentation that verifies the following:

• The case involves an active investigation of an unsolved violent crime against a person, or involves an active investigation of an unidentified person.
• The case is at least a year old, unless otherwise approved by the DPS Crime Laboratory's Scientific Analysis Administrator.
• All other investigative leads have been exhausted, including, if applicable, the elimination of potential consensual sexual partners.
• The case, which involves an unsolved violent crime, has significant public safety concerns.
• A commitment by the requesting agency to further investigate all leads given by the laboratory if potentially related individuals were identified through the search.

Does familial DNA, by itself, solve crimes?

In the document released by the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, familial DNA searches "simply identify ‘potential’ relatives of an alleged perpetrator."

What they're saying:

"A familial DNA search result is only a lead that is then followed up and investigated until a DNA sample of the suspect is obtained and tested," read a portion of the document. "It is those results—those of the suspect—that are generally used in court, not the familial DNA match."

In the same document, officials wrote that "a familial DNA search is not intended to replace traditional investigative efforts, but rather to complement those efforts."

Did familial DNA help with other investigations?

There have been a number of cases, both in Arizona and in other states, where familial DNA played a role in the investigation.

Taking A Look Back:

In April 2020, we reported that familial DNA analysis led to the arrest of a man named Tony Tyrone Reed.

Reed, who was 60 at the time of his arrest, was accused of killing 39-year-old Sabrina Rollins in 2016. A familial DNA analysis was conducted in 2019, after a male DNA profile was developed from a sexual assault kit that was sent to the DPS Crime Lab. The familial DNA analysis eventually led detectives to Reed.

In a case that did not directly involve a criminal suspect, we reported in July 2025 that familial DNA was used to identify a previously-unidentified female who was dubbed "Del Ray Jane Doe."

Some of the female's remains were found in a dumpster in an industrial part of Phoenix in June 1984, and according to the DNA Doe Project, the female was initially believed to be 16 to 18 years of age. The familial DNA search allowed investigators to identify her as a 14-year-old named Renee Isabel Nilsson.

An investigation into Nilsson's murder remains ongoing.

Perhaps one of the biggest cases that involved the use of familial DNA is the Bryan Kohberger case.

Kohberger was accused of killing four University of Idaho students in November 2022, and he was subsequently arrested in Pennsylvania. Sources with Fox News said genetic genealogy played a part in leading police to Kohberger.

Are there criticisms or controversies involving familial DNA?

Critics of forensic genetic genealogy have focused on the matter of privacy.

"In submitting our DNA for testing, we give away data that exposes not only our own physical and mental health characteristics, but also those of our parents, our grandparents and, as in [Joseph James] DeAngelo’s case, our third cousins — not to mention relatives who haven’t been born yet," read a commentary authored by ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project staff attorney Vera Eidelman, in 2018.

A lawsuit filed by the group Legal Aid Society against the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services in 2018, meanwhile, contended that people of color faced a higher risk of being investigated through familial DNA searching because the majority of DNA information in the state’s databank is from people of color, and that the state did nothing to restrain police overreach or give recourse to people subject to suspicion less searches.

Local perspective:

Familial DNA had presented problems in Arizona previously. Specifically, it was the factor in a legal battle involving the Feldman murder case.

In January 2023, a Maricopa County judge threw out the DNA sample that led to Mitcham's arrest.

The judge who made the decision to throw out the sample focused on blood that was collected from Mitcham during one of his prior DUI arrests: at the time, two vials were collected, one of which was used for testing during the course of the DUI investigation, while the other vial was meant to be used for independent testing on Mitcham's behalf, should he so choose.

In his ruling, the judge said Mitcham signed a notice that stated the second vial of blood would be destroyed after 90 days if a testing request was not made. However, that vial of blood was never destroyed, and remained in Scottsdale Police custody until late 2017, when Mitcham became a suspect in Feldman's murder.

"A subsequent analysis of the blood vials generated a DNA profile that matched the profile found at the scene of the crime. Police later obtained a search warrant to collect a buccal swab from Defendant, and the evidence collected pursuant to that warrant matched as well," read a portion of the ruling.

The judge ruled that since Mitcham agreed to the taking and analysis of his blood for drug and alcohol testing, the subsequent DNA analysis exceeded the scope of consent.

Prosecutors appealed the ruling in June 2023, and in August that same year, a state appeals court reversed it. The state Supreme Court heard arguments on the DNA evidence in September 2024, and in December that same year, the state Supreme Court ruled that the DNA evidence can be used.

Per the ruling, while the creation of Mitcham's DNA profile from that second vial of blood was a search that was unreasonable and violated Mitcham's 4th Amendment rights, a legal doctrine called the "inevitable discovery exception" applies because Mitcham pleaded guilty to various charges unrelated to the Feldman murder prior to the evidence suppression hearing, and was subsequently sentenced to prison.

The justices ruled that since Arizona law requires the state's corrections department to take a blood sample from every person convicted of a felony and sentenced to prison for the purposes of DNA profiling, DPS would have inevitably created a DNA profile of Mitcham.