STATE EXPERIENCES WITH OFFENDER REGISTRIES American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics DNA Fingerprinting & Civil

1. STATE EXPERIENCES WITH OFFENDER REGISTRIESAmerican Society of Law, Medicine & EthicsDNA Fingerprinting & Civil Liberties Workshop #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

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

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) 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 1994 - Congress enacts the DNA Identification Act -- CODIS is formally created 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) 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 2000 - Congress enacts the DNA Backlog Elimination Act (appropriates $140 million to states for DNA analysis) 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. 2003 – 31 States The Recent Trend To All Felons 1998 - 5 States 1999 - 6 States 2000 - 7 States 2002 - 22 States 2001 - 13 States 2006 - 45 States (est.) -- assuming data and funding

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

9. Perfecting Existing All Felons Statutes “All Felons” states that are not ALLFELONS: • Not Retroactive Colorado Delaware Georgia Iowa Minnesota North Carolina Tennessee Texas Wisconsin • No Juveniles Delaware Iowa Maryland Mississippi North Carolina • No Jailed Offenders Colorado Georgia Texas • No Community Corrections Colorado Texas

10. What is Driving the All Felons Legislation? • Crime Solving Data • Crime Prevention Capacity • Federal Money • Cost Benefit Analysis

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

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

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

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

15. Emerging Database TrendsArrestee 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 All felony arrests No expungement requirement No sample destruction requirement Certain felony indictments, or upon arrest if previous conviction for a qualifying offense Expungement required Sample destruction required 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) • Requires DNA from all convicted felons • Probation and community corrections • Juveniles • Fully retroactive (including probationers & parolees) • Includes all offenders in custody if there is a prior felony conviction • Requires DNA for all felony arrests in 5 years • Fee of $1 per every $10 for court ordered criminal fines • Includes infractions of state vehicle code and local ordinances, but excludes parking tickets. Money available to fund casework (Section IV, subsection 3). • Offender outsourcing required if backlog of 60 days

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

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

20. USA Database ExpansionAdvocacy 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 • Funding • Law enforcement has not taken ownership • State agency having control of the crime lab • Local law enforcement agencies • Centralization of Crime Lab expenses creates a negative effect on aggressive DNA casework • Growth will require local money

22. The Future • All felons is here • All arrestees is coming • Laws will strike a balance between effectiveness and privacy • Data will mandate larger databases • Suspect databasing sample destruction

23. QUESTIONS