1. May 15, 2004 Cambridge, MA Presented by Tim Schellberg - Smith Alling Lane, P.S. Washington, DC (202) 258-2301 Tacoma, WA (253) 627-1091 London, UK (011) 44(0) 798 953 8386 tims@smithallinglane.com STATE EXPERIENCES WITH OFFENDER REGISTRIES American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics DNA Fingerprinting & Civil Liberties Workshop #1

2. Governmental Affairs Attorneys at Law Smith Alling Lane A Professional Services Corporation

4. US DNA Database Legislative Time-Line 1983 - California Legislature passes law to collect blood from certain offenders - “DNA” is not mentioned in statute 1988 - Colorado Legislature becomes the first to enact laws requiring DNA from sex offenders 1990 - Virginia Legislature becomes first to enact an all felons DNA law 1991 - Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) establishes guidelines on state sex offender DNA database laws - FBI begins promoting the passage of sex offender DNA database laws - FBI develops CODIS concept 1992 - Majority of states begin passing laws to create DNA databases for sex offenders

5. Time-Line (continued) 1994 - Congress enacts the DNA Identification Act -- CODIS is formally created 1996 - Congress enacts the Anti-Terror and Effective Death Penalty Act - a provision of the legislation encourages (requires) states to enact sex offender DNA database laws - Most states have sex offender DNA database statutes in place 1997 - A majority of states begin focusing on expanding their database laws to include violent crimes and burglary 1999 - 50 states have enacted sex offender DNA database laws - 27 state DNA databases include violent crimes - 14 state DNA databases include burglary - 6 state DNA databases to include all convicted felons - The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Criminal Defense Bar oppose all felons legislation in most states

6. Time-Line (continued) 2000 - Congress enacts the DNA Backlog Elimination Act (appropriates $140 million to states for DNA analysis) 2001 - Preliminary data showing the success of the Virginia DNA database is released - ACLU and Criminal Defense Bar do not oppose all felons debate in most states - A surge in all felons legislation occurs - 7 more states enact laws, for a total of 14 states with all felon laws 2002 - All felons legislation surge continues - 8 more states laws, for a total of 22 states with all felon laws - Continued reliance on both Virginia data and federal funds - Congress begins work on the Debbie Smith Act - Virginia enacts limited arrestee DNA testing law 2003 - 9 additional states pass all felons legislation, for a total of 31 - Large federal appropriation pending - President’s DNA Initiative is introduced - Louisiana enacts comprehensive arrestee DNA testing law

7. The Recent Trend To All Felons 1998 - 5 States1999 - 6 States2000 - 7 States 2006 - 45 States (est.) -- assuming data and funding 2001 - 13 States 2002 - 22 States 2003 – 31 States

8. 2004 Legislative Session: DNA Database Expansion Bills Considering limited expansion legislation (3) Currently an all-felons state (31) Considering all felons legislation in 2004 (12) Through a voters’ initiative * * Passed all felons expansion legislation in 2004 (3)

9. Perfecting Existing All Felons Statutes ALL FELONS “ All Felons” states that are not ALL FELONS: 8 Not Retroactive ColoradoDelawareGeorgiaIowa Minnesota North CarolinaTennesseeTexasWisconsin 8 No Juveniles DelawareIowaMaryland Mississippi North Carolina 8 No Jailed Offenders ColoradoGeorgiaTexas 8 No Community Corrections ColoradoTexas

10. What is Driving the All Felons Legislation? zCrime Solving Data zCrime Prevention Capacity zFederal Money zCost Benefit Analysis

11. Virginia’s “Cold Hits” on the DNA Database All Drug Offenders to Type of Crime Solved

12. Virginia’s “Cold Hits” on the DNA Database Drug Possession Only to Type of Crime Solved

13. Virginia’s “Cold Hits” on the DNA Database Forgery to Type of Crime Solved

14. Virginia’s “Cold Hits” on the DNA Database Juveniles to Type of Crime Solved

15. Emerging Database Trends Emerging Database Trends Arrestee Testing Proposals Arizona (2002, 2003) – All arrests California (2004) – Felony arrests Colorado (2003) – Felony arrests Connecticut (2000) – Fingerprintable arrests Illinois (2004) – Felony arrests Louisiana (2003) – Felony arrests and some misdemeanors Maryland (2004) – Felony charges New Jersey (2004) – Violent felony arrests New York (2001-2004) Fingerprintable arrests Oklahoma (2004) – Felony arrests Texas (2001) – Certain felony arrests and indictments Virginia (2002) – Violent felony arrests Washington (2004) – Arrests for criminal charges

16. Enacted Arrestee DNA Testing Certain felony indictments, or upon arrest if previous conviction for a qualifying offense Expungement required Sample destruction required All felony arrests No expungement requirement No sample destruction requirement Violent felony arrests after determination that probable cause exists for the arrest Expungement required Sample destruction required

17. California DNA Initiative (#1029 - www.dnayes.org) 4Requires DNA from all convicted felons ÜProbation and community corrections ÜJuveniles ÜFully retroactive (including probationers & parolees) ÜIncludes all offenders in custody if there is a prior felony conviction 4Requires DNA for all felony arrests in 5 years 4Fee of $1 per every $10 for court ordered criminal fines ÜIncludes infractions of state vehicle code and local ordinances, but excludes parking tickets. Money available to fund casework (Section IV, subsection 3). 4Offender outsourcing required if backlog of 60 days

18. Database Legislation's Relationship to Casework Increased offender testing = increased casework Legislature / Parliament

19. Summary of Legislation Scenarios applied to 270 million US population Casework Estimated number of samples tested occurring on the eighth year after the passage of the legislation Offender Samples Estimated number of samples tested during the five year period after the passage of the legislation

20. Advocacy and Opposition USA Database Expansion Advocacy and Opposition Supporters Police Associations Prosecutor Association Victims and Victim Associations Opposition American Civil Liberties Union Criminal Defense Lawyers Legislators and citizens concerned with loss of privacy

21. Problems Slowing Aggressive Growth of DNA Programs zFunding zLaw enforcement has not taken ownership y State agency having control of the crime lab y Local law enforcement agencies zCentralization of Crime Lab expenses creates a negative effect on aggressive DNA casework yGrowth will require local money

22. The Future zAll felons is here zAll arrestees is coming zLaws will strike a balance between effectiveness and privacy yData will mandate larger databases ySuspect databasing sample destruction

23. QUESTIONS