1 / 29

2004 LEGISLATIVE UDATE AAFS - ABI Users Meeting

2004 LEGISLATIVE UDATE AAFS - ABI Users Meeting. Presented by: Smith Alling Lane, P.S. Tacoma, WA (253) 627-1091 Washington, DC (202) 258-2301 London 0 (44) 798 953 8386 Tim Schellberg, J.D. tims@smithallinglane.com February 18, 2004. Smith Alling Lane

orde
Download Presentation

2004 LEGISLATIVE UDATE AAFS - ABI Users Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2004 LEGISLATIVE UDATE AAFS - ABI Users Meeting Presented by: Smith Alling Lane, P.S. Tacoma, WA (253) 627-1091 Washington, DC (202) 258-2301 London 0 (44) 798 953 8386 Tim Schellberg, J.D. tims@smithallinglane.com February 18, 2004

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

  3. DNA DATABASE EXPANSION

  4. The Recent Trend To All Felons 1998 - 5 States 1999 - 6 States 2000 - 7 States 2002 - 22 States 2001 - 13 States 2003 – 31 States 2006 - 45 States (est.) -- assuming data and funding

  5. 2003 Legislative Session: DNA Database Expansion Bills * * * Currently an all-felons state (22) Enacted all felons legislation in 2003 (9) Introduced but failed to pass limited expansion legislation (1) Failed to pass all felons legislation (8) * Addressed sunset provisions in database statute

  6. State DNA Database Statutes(As of February 2004)

  7. Michigan            Minnesota           Mississippi          Missouri       Montana          Nebraska      Nevada         New Hampshire          New Jersey             New Mexico            New York        North Carolina          North Dakota       Ohio           Oklahoma        Oregon             Pennsylvania          

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

  9. 2004 DNA Database Legislation(As of February 2004)

  10. California DNA Initiative (#1029 - www.dnayes.org) • Requires DNA from all convicted felons • Probation and parole • Juveniles • Retroactive • Includes all offenders in custody if there is a prior felony conviction • Requires DNA for all felony arrests in 5 years • Expungement is burden of the offender • Offender outsourcing required if backlog of 60 days • Fee of $1 per every $10 for court ordered criminal fines • Includes infractions of state vehicle code and local ordinances, but excludes parking tickets

  11. 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 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

  12. 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

  13. Louisiana Senate Bill 346Raising the Bar • Influence of the “Baton Rouge Serial Murders” on passing SB 346? • SB 346(enacted) gives Louisiana the strongest DNA law in the United States: • All felony arrests • Some misdemeanor arrests • No expungement requirements

  14. Future of Arrestee DNA Legislation • One of two pre-requisites seem to be necessary to pass meaningful arrestee testing legislation: • Mature and successful all felons program (Virginia) • Politically charged public safety paranoia (Louisiana) • Louisiana’s SB 346 might be the exception. Others might have to compromise like Virginia. Some strategies may diminish opposition: • Limit to violent and sex crimes • Require expungement if suspect is not convicted • Require sample destruction after profiling is complete

  15. FEDERAL DNA PROGRAM FUNDING

  16. 2004 Congressional BudgetAs Passed Congress Jan. 22, 2003 • DNA Backlog Elimination Act $100.0 M Earmarked DNA Programming Convicted Offender $ 5 million Unsolved Casework $55 million Crime Lab Capacity $30 million Criminal Justice Training $ 5 million Missing Persons $ 5 million • Coverdell Forensics Science Improvement $10.0 M Requires study of forensic science needs • COPS Law Enforcement Technology Program Some earmarks for DNA and forensic science programs • Crime Identification Technology Act Some earmarks for DNA and forensic science programs

  17. Law Enforcement Technology Program.--The conference agreement includes $158,407,000 for the COPS Law Enforcement Technology Program. The conference agreement adopts by reference the House report language concerning standards. Within the amounts provided under this account, grants should be provided for the following: • $2,000,000 for the Ohio Palmprint AFIS Program; • $500,000 for forensics, crime scene collection, and drug detection abilities upgrades at the Sandy City, UT, Crime Lab; • $500,000 for the Regional Crime Lab at Missouri Southern State College; • $1,000,000 for Sam Houston State University to develop the Texas Center for Forensic Sciences, with a primary focus in the area of digital forensic science; • $250,000 for Washoe County, NV, Sheriff's Department of Forensics and DNA Analysis; • $500,000 to establish a police science laboratory at Holyoke Community College, MA; • $1,000,000 for Texas Tech University's Institute for Forensic Sciences; • $3,000,000 to the Louisville, KY, Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory; • $1,000,000 to Allegheny County, PA, to improve its forensic laboratories; • $1,000,000 to the University of Alabama at Birmingham's Forensic Science Institute; • $800,000 for the Ohio Attorney General's Office Crime Laboratory System Improvement Project; • $500,000 for medical examiner upgrades for the Jefferson County, AL, Medical Examiner's Office; • $450,000 to Brown University in Providence, RI, for a nanotechnology study of DNA sequencing methods; • $3,300,000 for Marshall University's Forensic Science Program; • $1,500,000 to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division for continued funding to support the growing State and local law enforcement needs in the only full service forensic laboratory in South Carolina; • $1,000,000 for the Honolulu, HI, Police Department's Crime Lab Improvements; • $500,000 for planning, design, and equipment for the State of Vermont Forensic Laboratory;

  18. Crime Identification Technology Act -- Within the overall amounts recommended, the conferees expect OJP to examine each of the following proposals, to provide grants if warranted, and to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations on its intentions for each proposal: • $4,000,000 for West Virginia University's Forensic Identification Program; • $1,500,000 for the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division [SLED] to continue funding for necessary equipment for SLED's criminal justice information system; to convert existing databases and integrate systems for accurate and rapid processing of information to support identifications for criminal and civilian purposes; • $9,400,000 for the South Carolina Judicial Department to continue purchasing equipment for the integration of the case docket system into a state-of-the-art comprehensive database to be shared between the court system and law enforcement; • $500,000 for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's CriMNet system; • $1,000,000 for the establishment of a forensic DNA analysis lab at North Dakota State University; • $170,000 for the Case Management/Central Docketing System in Kansas; • $600,000 for the Orem City, UT, Consolidated Records Management System; and • $56,000 for the Kansas Telephone-Toll Analysis System.

  19. 2005 President’s Budget DNA Provisions PROPOSED BUDGET LANGUAGE For technology for crime identification, $231,974,000, as follows: $175,788,000 by formula for the substantive purposes authorized under section 2(a) of the DNA Act, and for other State or Federal forensic DNA activities, of which not less than $35,000,000 shall be for increasing state and local DNA laboratory capacity, and $10,000,000 shall be available for discretionary research, demonstration, evaluation, statistics, technical assistance and training. EXPLANATION DNA Enhancements.—$175.788 million is proposed for State and local crime laboratories to reduce and eventually eliminate backlogs of DNA casework samples (including crime scene and convicted offender samples). Effective backlog reduction requires both the direct defray of sample analysis costs to meet immediate needs, and improvements, especially automation upgrades, in forensic laboratories to increase their capacity, eventually enabling them to keep abreast of their DNA analysis without additional Federal funding. These efforts will help prosecute the guilty and exonerate the innocent. The amount requested for this effort reflects a nearly $81 million increase over the level of resources in the 2004 Omnibus.

  20. FEDERAL LEGISLATION

  21. PRESIDENT’S DNA INITIATAIVE: Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology (HR 3214 and S 1700) More than $1 billion over five years (2005 through 2009) Proposed 2005 spending • $151 million for Debbie Smith DNA grant At least half ($75 million) for no-suspect casework Offender DNA analysis and collection Crime lab capacity for DNA analysis Suspect casework 1% for accreditation • $30 million for Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Training • $12.5 million for training for criminal justice professionals • $15 million for research and development. • $42 million for FBI DNA programs • $2 Million for Missing Persons DNA Programs • $5 Million for Post Conviction DNA Testing

  22. PRESIDENT’S DNA INITIATAIVE: Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology (HR 3214 and S 1700) • Recommends state databases to include all felons • Apply expanded database statutes retroactively, to include those “under supervision” • Expand federal database to include all felons • Allows local governments to apply for DNA money directly • Allow inclusion of other DNA samples “collected under applicable legal authority” • Allows keyboard searches

  23. 2004 Federal DNA Legislation BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE: H.R. 3214 - Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) (Passed by House on 11/05/2003) Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) Judiciary Crime Subcommittee Chair BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE: S. 1700 - Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) S. 1828 - Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Senator John Kyle (R-AZ) Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Judiciary Committee Chair

  24. Authorized but not Collected • How big is the problem? • What are the consequences?

  25. Questions ?

More Related