Forensic DNA Policy A Global Perspective CIPAE Conference December 2, 2008 Brasilia, Brazil Presented by: Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs Tacoma, WA (253) 620-6500 Washington, DC (202) 258-2301 Seattle, WA (206) 676-7500 Tim Schellberg tims@gth-gov.com

Gordon Thomas Honeywell Government Affairs Tacoma, Washington Washington, DC

OFFENDER DNA DATABASES HOW DOES IT WORK? Convicted Offender Forensic Evidence

CODIS Architecture - Different Levels NDIS SDIS Change to California Change to Texas LDIS Dallas Houston Los Angeles San Francisco

Offender DNA Databases SOLVE MORE CRIME PREVENT MORE CRIME EXONERATE THE INNOCENT COST / BENEFIT

Your Offender Database Controls the “Hit Rates” Estimated Hit Rates Based on United States and United Kingdom Data Sex offenders 5% Sex offenders & Violent offenders 10% Sex offenders, Violent offenders and Property crimes 20% All crimes, minus minor crimes 40% All crimes 50% All arrestees 60%

THE 5 STAGES OF FORENSIC DNA PROGRAMS Global Observations

Named suspect-to-crime scene evidence only – NO DATABASE

Databases without offenders Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database Databases without offenders Suspects and crime scenes compared against crime scene databases (some suspect databases too)

Offender Database Legislation Named suspect-to-crime scene evidence only – NO DATABASE Databases without offenders Offender Database Legislation The essential element: No database legislation means no significant casework testing

Unsolved Casework Demand Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database Offender Database Legislation Offender Database Legislation Unsolved Casework Demand Increases as database grows – Higher Hit rates encourage more non-suspect demand.

Urgency (turnaround time) Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database Offender Database Legislation Unsolved Casework Demand Unsolved Casework Demand Urgency (turnaround time)

Status of DNA Databases throughout the world (add world category under Europe) United States England and Wales Europe

United States

U.S. DNA Database Legislative Time-Line 1988 – States begin requiring DNA from offenders 1991 - Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) establishes guidelines on state sex offender DNA database laws - FBI promotes the passage of sex offender DNA database laws - FBI develops CODIS concept 1994 - Congress enacts the DNA Identification Act -- CODIS is formally created

U.S. Time-Line (continued) 1996 - Most states have sex offender DNA database statutes 1999 - 50 states have enacted sex offender DNA database laws - States begin push for all convictions (minus minor crimes) database legislation - The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Criminal Defense Bar organize to oppose all convictions legislation 2000 - Congress enacts the DNA Backlog Elimination Act (appropriates $140 million to states for DNA analysis)

U.S Time-Line (continued) 2005 - A total of 43 states pass have passed all crimes (minus minor crimes) legislation - President’s DNA Initiative of $1 Billion is passed and begins implementation - California implements comprehensive arrestee DNA testing law 2008 A push to arresting testing legislation – 14 states have passed law so far Immigration DNA testing to begin Victim groups increase visibility New privacy issues emerge, such as familial testing

United States Database Size 3 Federal and 50 state databases Common themes exist, but all 50 states have different database legislation 6.2 million offender samples 237,000 crime scene samples 47 states collect from all convicted offenders, except minor crimes Remaining 3 states collect from all violent crimes and burglary 14 states have laws to collect DNA from arrested offenders Purging: Convicted offenders – No Arrested offenders - Some

United States Funding Problems States fund most of the costs Federal government operates central database Local governments pay very little $1 Billion federal investment through “President’s DNA Initiative” Problems Backlogs are still significant: Private labs vs. building sufficient public labs Still looking for a shift in law enforcement collection habits Turn around time lags far behind United Kingdom Privacy concern with arrestee samples Local governments generally don’t pay for testing

Offender Database Legislation 2008 - 47 States require DNA from all convicted felons 2008 - 14 States required DNA from arrested offenders 21

Observations of the offender legislation efforts(2000-2008) Credit goes to the forensic community Federal Government, DNA Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence and local prosecutors. Convicted offender legislation passed rapidly, but arrestee is taking longer. Legislators took a long time to understand the databases Opponents, such as ACLU, and Defense Bar were mostly quiet for convicted offender laws after having concerns initially. “Pass it and the money will come” was an essential strategy. Federal funding is important Victims are becoming more involved. Prevention data is essential Strategy and compromise will be essential

United Kingdom

United Kingdom Database Size Funding Collection and casework One national database – 4.5 offender (subject) samples Operated by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) Legislation requires permanent databasing of all people arrested Nearly 427,000 Crime Scene samples – Average 60,000 per year. Hit Rate is current 55% and expected to rise See the United Kingdom’s annual report at http://www.npia.police.uk/en/11403.htm Funding Strong financial support from national government to operate FSS Local governments also invest heavily in casework, by reimbursing FSS for casework Collection and casework Aggressive crime scene casework Adds between 1,000 to 1,500 profiles to the crime scene database each week Over 1,700 crime scene to crime scene or suspect to crime scene hits per week

Turn Around Time (in Days) by Type of Case 10 20 30 40 50 Burglary Drugs Assault Murder Sexual Offense 1999 2000 2001

Europe - include all the way to Russia (see list)

Europe Interpol DNA Gateway Database Australia CrimTrac Current Database Laws All but a few countries have databases (link to slide) Most have passed offender database legislation Details http://www.enfsi.eu/page.php?uid=98 Extensive purging required Database size varies (link to slide) Over 50% using CODIS software (link to slide) The Future of European Databases Strong recognition that the future is suspect databases European wide searches through the Prum Treaty ENFSI DNA –Database Management Review and Recommendations http://www.enfsi.eu/page.php?uid=98 Interpol DNA Gateway Database Australia CrimTrac

ENFSI Recommendation Recommendation #1 Recommendation #3 “Every EU/ENFSI – county should establish a forensic DNA-database and specific legislation for its implementation and management” Recommendation #3 “To increase the chance of a DNA-profile of a stain to match to a person, the number of persons which are likely to cause matches in a DNA-database be as high as legally (and financially) possible”

DNA Databases Countries All countries, but Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Russia, Turkey and Northern Ireland

Rest of the World (Map of world) First click brings in US, UK and Europe. Second click brings in other established databases and third click brings in Countries pursuing databases Established and growing DNA databases (Other than US, UK and Europe): Australia New Zealand Canada South Africa Japan China Israel Countries Pursuing Databases Chile India Uruguay Brazil Argentina Caribbean Nations Bosnia Singapore United Arab Emirates Columbia South Korea Malaysia Thailand Philippines Mexico

VICTIM ADVOCACY The concept of victim groups promoting DNA database laws is aggressively expanding to other parts of the world

United State’s Debbie Smith The Debbie Smith Act and Beyond

USA – DNA Funding to Continue DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT SIGNED BY PRESIDENT OCTOBER 8, 2008 The bill reauthorizes federal funding for grants to state and local crime labs to assist with backlog reduction and capacity enhancement. The grants are reauthorized at $151 million through 2014. As recently as last month this commitment was renewed by the passage of the reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act. - Rob and Debbie Smith with Congresswoman Maloney of NY and Congressman Reichert of WA 11/22/2018

New leader for advancing arrestee legislation: Jayann Sepich New Mexico New leader for advancing arrestee legislation: Jayann Sepich

: Drive to Arrestee Testing: Career criminals are recidivists and their crimes become more violent over time. Chicago study of 8 convicted offenders 60 preventable violent crimes, including 30 rapes and 22 murders Why are States and countries around the world continuing to expand the scope of their legislation? A quick look a recent study conducted by the city of Chicago clearly shows that many career criminals are recidivists and that their crimes become more violent over time. The City of Chicago studied the criminal histories of eight convicted offenders. They were able to show that if any of the offenders had been required to provide DNA upon arrest, a number of heinous crimes could have been prevented. In fact, if all of the offenders had been required to submit a DNA sample at the same time as they were fingerprinted during their first arrest, 60 crimes, including 30 rapes and 22 murders would have been prevented. Furthermore, the study revealed that of the 21 prior arrests between all offenders only 7 were for violent crimes. The rest would have linked the perpetrator to a murder or rape by linking them upon arrest to a non-violent offense, including theft and drug offenses—This demonstrates the incredible power of a DNA database to prevent and solve crime by requiring DNA collection upon arrest. 8 offenders 60 unnecessary victims

Other Emerging Policy Issues

“ A Not So Perfect Match” Familial Searching 60 Minutes – April 1 “ A Not So Perfect Match” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/60minutes/main2600721.shtml

What is the status on Brazil’s effort to Establishing a forensic DNA Program?

Moving forward over time SENASP proposal awaiting approval by Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice likely to submit to proposal similar to SENASP’s to Brazilian Congress this year?? Various drafts of legislation already prepared Brazilian officials in discussion with FBI to use CODIS software for databasing.

Lessons Learned for Brazil Create a database law that maximizes the “hit rate” Make database a priority Include all suspects, not just convicted offenders If privacy problems arise for including suspects, destroy suspect sample after profiling Avoid purging profiles from database Include juveniles Include all categories of incarceration Do not take incremental steps Retroactive Provision: Include convicted offenders that are currently incarcerated or under supervision. Add them immediately. Utilize private laboratory outsourcing to reduce initial costs Use most efficient collection method (saliva swabs)

Lessons Learned for Brazil Collection Strategies Implement “Rape Victim DNA Program” Instant results Generates strong public support National intensive effort to make law enforcement aware of DNA Utilize free DNA collection training guides produced by the United States and England/Wales Avoid testing delay: Consider outsourcing more basic cases, such as Rape Kits

Lessons Learned for Brazil Funding strategies Offender/suspect database: Collect now - analyze later Offender/suspect database: Offender pays for inclusion costs Casework: England and Wales model - Local government pays for casework Casework: United States - Large grant program from federal government

Lessons Learned for Brazil Develop Strong Support Network Make sure agency controlling databases are actively supportive Educate local law enforcement and prosecutor leaders Gain victim group support Address civil rights concerns Educate relevant legislators and legislative staff

Questions ? www.dnaresource.com tims@gth-gov.com