DNA DATABASE EXPANSION 2001 CODIS Conference Washington D.C. October 29, 2001 Presented by Tim Schellberg, JD - Smith Alling Lane, P.S. Tacoma, WA (253) Washington, DC (202)

Reviewing DNA Database Expansion Legislation in 1999 and 2000 z Estimated 10 states introduced bills and 6 passed z States introduced bill and 8 passed zIdentified trends in 1999 & Steady, yet conservative growth 4 Focus on violent crimes and burglary 4 Very few states considering all felons 4 State and federal legislators starting to fund DNA databasing

PASSED (8) Arizona -- Most non-drug related felonies Colorado -- Most non-drug related felonies Florida -- Burglary Georgia -- All felony convictions New Jersey -- Several violent felonies South Carolina -- Most non-drug related felonies South Dakota - Most non-drug related felonies West Virginia -- Most non-drug related felonies In 2000, 19 states introduced legislation to expand the offenders from whom DNA samples are required DNA Database Expansion (2000) DID NOT PASS (11) Alaska -- Burglary California -- All felony convictions Connecticut-- Fingerprintable arrests Hawaii -- Most violent crimes Kentucky -- Most violent crimes Mississippi -- All felony convictions New York -- All misdemeanor and felony convictions Pennsylvania -- Most violent crimes Ohio -- Most non-drug related felonies Rhode Island -- Breaking and entering & assault Washington -- All felony convictions

35 states have introduced over 110 bills to expand the state offender DNA database to include more felons. Of these states, 25 have introduced bills to expand the DNA database to include all convicted felons. DNA Database Expansion in the 2001 Legislature Current all-felons states Passed 2001 Legislation Pending 2001 Legislation Defeated 2001 Legislation F F F F F F FF F F F F F FF F

2001 Expansion Bills AlaskaSB 99 - Halford & MurkowskiBurglaryPassed Arkansas HB HuntBurglary Passed HB VerkampAll FelonsFailed ArizonaSB SmithAll FelonsFailed CaliforniaAB MigdenBurglary, robbery, arson,Passed carjacking ColoradoHB GrossmanAll FelonsPassed ConnecticutSB 89 - BrienViolent felonies, burglaryFailed DelawareHB 4 - EwingAll FelonsFailed FloridaSB Villalobos & SilverAll FelonsPassed HawaiiMultiple bills (HB Marumoto)All FelonsFailed IowaHF BaudlerAll FelonsFailed IllinoisHB Lyons Stalking, concealment of a Passed homicide IndianaSB AlexaProbationers & paroleesPassed KansasSB FelcianoBurglary, misdemeanor Passed sex offenses KentuckyHB 33 - YountsAll FelonsFailed MaineLD CarrClass A,B & C crimesPassed MichiganMultiple bills All FelonsPassed (Van Regenmorter, Faunce, Kooiman, others)

2001 Expansion Bills MinnesotaMultiple billsAll FelonsFailed MississippiMultiple billsAll FelonsFailed MissouriHB BoucherAll FelonsFailed MontanaHB ClarkAll FelonsPassed North CarolinaHB BlustAll FelonsPending North DakotaHB KleminViolent felons, burglaryPassed New HampshireSB 30 - HollingworthMurder, assault, arson, rob.Failed New JerseySB BuccoRobbery, carjacking, criminal Pending restraint NevadaAB GustavsonA, B & C feloniesPassed New YorkSB 5640All FelonsPending OklahomaSB WilkersonRobbery, burglary, kidnap, Passed maiming OregonSB 920 HB Minnis and Winters All FelonsPassed PennsylvaniaSB DentBurglaryPending Rhode IslandSB 92 - BrienCrimes of violencePassed South CarolinaSB McConnell2nd degree burglaryPassed TexasHB GarciaAll FelonsPassed SB BarrientosIndictments for certain crimesPassed WashingtonHB MilosciaAll FelonsFailed West VirginiaHB PinoArson, burglary, forgeryFailed

Failed X Senate Bill 1171 (Smith) -- All felons.  Collection, but no analysis

Passed  House Bill 1130 (Grossman) -- All felons.  In custody of Department of Corrections  Allocates anticipated federal funding

Passed  Senate Bill 366 (Villalobos & Silver) -- All felons.  Phased in over 4 years  Subject to specific appropriation

Passed  Senate Bill 316 (Alexa)  Obtains samples from specified offenders not in the custody of the Department of Corrections.

Passed  Legislative Document 1565 (Carr) -- Class A, B & C Crimes.  Expands offenses for databasing, but repeals current law that requires collection from juveniles.  Opposed by the state crime lab - the reduction of juveniles will be greater than the expansion of crimes for databasing.

Passed  Multiple all felon bills.  Very Comprehensive  Some misdemeanor  Adds Juveniles  Seems to have aggressive agency support

Failed X House Bill 440 (Boucher) -- All felons.  Defeated at the last minute  Agency did not support the bill

Passed Two Bills  House Bill 588 (Garcia) -- All felons.  Not retroactive  No juveniles  Contingent on federal or “other” funding  Penalties for misuse of data  Senate Bill 638 (Barrientos) -- Indictments for certain sex crimes and burglary.  Where is murder and robbery?  What will the courts do?  Can federal money be used?

FY 2002 Federal Funding Outlook for DNA zCongressional Budget (Pre-Conference) 4HOUSE PROPOSAL: $40 Million for DNA Backlog Elimination $35 Million for Crime Lab Improvement Program (CLIP) 4 SENATE PROPOSAL $70 Million for CLIP/DNA Program (over $17 million earmarked)

Trends From 2001 Legislatures zAll-Felons 4 In 2000, only 5 states attempted the all- felons legislation. This year, 25 states introduced the all-felons legislation. zLess Active Opposition 4 The Texas ACLU decided to not oppose the all- felons bill

All-Felons DNA Database Expansion in the 2001 Legislature Introduced all-felons legislation in 2001 Introduced all felons legislation in 2000 Already require DNA samples from all felons all-felons bills introduced all-felons bills introduced

Trends (continued) zSecure authority now and worry about the implementation ($$) later zState reliance on federal funding zLegislatures rejecting arrestee databasing

What a difference a year makes! zIn 2000 only 8 states passed DNA expansion bills. In 2001 an estimated 22 states will pass expansion legislation. yWhy the change? Ü New data Ü Success of the database Ü Citizen demand

DNA Database Expansion Successes: Past, Present, Future 1999 (6 states)2000 (8 states) 2001 (22 states, est.)

Policy Concerns Developing in 2001 zNon-retroactive. zLimiting collection to those in the custody of the Corrections Department. zExempting juveniles (Maine and Texas).

Arrestee Testing zPolitical Reality ÔVery few state legislatures will pass arrestee databasing legislation. zHow can arrestee testing work around the legislature? 4Collect DNA upon arrest, compare to unsolved database, then discard if not convicted of qualifying offense. 4No databasing means no legislation is needed.

Arrestee Testing, cont. yBenefit - Ensure that suspect in custody is not wanted for other unsolved crime yConsiderations 3City and County law enforcement would run program. 3Change in federal CODIS statute would enhance results. 3Would states law allow it? Statutes? State Constitutions? 3Should local agencies create their own arrestee databases?

Arrestee Testing, cont. yCreating the model pilot for arrestee testing 4Large urban city or county P.D. 4A significant database of unsolved DNA cases should exist in the state where pilot is located 4City or county operates own laboratory

Discussions of DNA for visa background checks raises another question... Currently, millions of Americans provide fingerprints prior to employment for criminal background checks. Should they also have their DNA checked against the unsolved database? “Have we ever considered taking DNA for criminal background checks in the United States?”

Forensic DNA in Other Parts of the World

ANNOUNCEMENT zSmith Alling Lane is pleased to welcome Chris Asplen, currently the Executive Director on the Future of DNA Evidence. yEffective January 2002, Chris will join Smith Alling Lane where he will focus on development of forensic DNA policy in Europe. He will be located in London, England.

Questions Tim Schellberg, J.D. - Smith Alling Lane, P.S. Washington DC (202) Tacoma, WA (253)