Why Pass this Law?

States have been collecting DNA from convicted felons for almost two decades, and it’s helped solve thousands of crimes. But, we can do more. By passing arrestee DNA legislation, law enforcement officials can catch criminals sooner, save more lives and use DNA to its full potential. Collected at the same time as fingerprints, DNA testing only requires a simple cheek swab upon arrest. That’s why Congress and a few pioneering states have already passed laws for DNA Arrestee Testing.

Arrestee testing will help your state to:
  • Catch repeat offenders sooner
  • Prevent violent crimes
  • Exonerate the innocent
  • Protect civil liberties
  • Reduce criminal justice costs
The Facts
  • Since 1974, more than 90 percent of all state prisoners have been repeat offenders
  • 70% of America’s crime is committed by 6% of its criminals
    Bright Lines, Dark Deeds: Counting Convictions Under the Armed Career Criminal Act by James E Hooper; Michigan Law Review, Vol. 89, 1991
  • With DNA arrestee testing on the books since 2003, Virginia has received over 5,000 hits on their database, with nearly 500 of these matches directly attributal to arrestees
    www.dfs.virginia.gov/statistics/index.cfm
  • 1 out of every 6 American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape
    www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
  • To date, post-conviction DNA testing has led to the exoneration of more than 200 wrongfully convicted individuals in the United States, and many of these individuals were not fully exonerated until after a DNA match was made on the database to another offender
    www.innocenceproject.org
  • 21 States have enacted legislation to require DNA from certain felony arrestees, and even more states are considering such laws
    www.dnaresource.com

The Chicago Study

In 2005, the City of Chicago demonstrated the prevalence of repeat crime and the importance of arrestee testing. By taking a closer look at the criminal history of eight convicted felons, the Chicago Study uncovered startling results - 60 violent crimes could have been prevented if only DNA had been collected for a prior felony arrest. In each case, the offender had committed previously undetected violent crimes that investigators could have identified immediately through a DNA match.

Unfortunately, DNA was not required at arrest. The eight offenders in Chicago accumulated a total of 21 felony arrests before law enforcement officials were finally able to convict them of violent crimes.

With DNA arrestee testing, the following crimes could have been prevented:

  • 22 murders – victims ranging from 24 to 44 years of age
  • 30 rapes – victims ranging from 15 to 65 years of age
  • Attempted rapes
  • Aggravated kidnapping
  • Protecting civil liberties
Click here to download The Chicago Study

See similar preventable crimes in:

Privacy Rights Intact

While often challenged on Constitutional grounds, courts throughout the country have overwhelmingly upheld DNA database statutes. These decisions and the supporting rationale have been clear that the processes, procedures, and benefits of collecting DNA from those arrested for serious crimes is as constitutionally sound as the collection of fingerprints.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals from searches and seizures which are “unreasonable.” For years, the Courts, including the US Supreme Court, have found that, when a suspect is arrested with probable cause, his identification becomes a matter of legitimate state interest. The rationale behind the decision is the fact that the identification of suspects is “relevant not only to solving the crime for which the suspect is arrested, but also for maintaining a permanent record to solve other past and future crimes.” (Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir. 1992); Johnson v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 654, 672, 529 S.E.2d 769, 779 (2000).) This becomes particularly clear when we consider the universal nature of "booking" procedures that are followed for every suspect arrested for a felony, whether or not the proof of a particular suspect's crime will involve fingerprint evidence or an eyewitness identification for which mug shots could be used.

Treating the taking of DNA samples at arrest just like fingerprinting at arrest has been widely accepted. Consider these additional examples:
  • The Second Circuit held “[t]he collection and maintenance of DNA information, while effected through relatively more intrusive procedures such as blood draws or buccal cheek swabs, in our view plays the same role as fingerprinting.” Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 671 (2d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 384 (2006).
  • The Third Circuit held “[t]he governmental justification for [DNA] identification relies on no argument different in kind from that traditionally advanced for taking fingerprints and photographs, but with additional force because of the potentially greater precision of DNA sampling and matching methods.” United States v. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175, 185-86 (3d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S Ct. 2930 (2006).
  • The Ninth Circuit held “[t]hat the gathering of DNA information requires the drawing of blood rather than inking and rolling a person’s fingertips does not elevate the intrusion upon the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment interests to a level beyond minimal.” Rise v. State, 59 F.3d 1556, 1560 (9th Cir. 1995).
  • The State of Maryland held “The purpose [of the DNA profile] is akin to that of a fingerprint. (State v. Raines, 857 A.2d 19, 33 (Md. 2004).
  • New Jersey held, “We harbor no doubt that the taking of a buccal cheek swab is a very minor physical intrusion upon the person . . . . [T]hat intrusion is no more intrusive than the fingerprint procedure and the taking of one’s photograph that a person must already undergo as part of the normal arrest process.” State v. O’Hagen, 914 A.2d 267, 280 (N.J. 2007)
  • Oregon held, “Because using a swab to take a DNA sample from the mucous membrane of an arrestee’s cheek is akin to the fingerprinting of a person in custody, we conclude that the seizure of defendant’s DNA did not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the constitution.” State v. Brown, 157 P.3d 301, 303 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)
  • The Virginia State Supreme Court held “the taking of Anderson's DNA sample upon arrest in Stafford County pursuant to Code § 19.2-310.2:1 is analogous to the taking of a suspect's fingerprints upon arrest and was not an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment.

Reducing costs

By collecting DNA from arrestees, law enforcement can identify criminals earlier and create more efficient Investigation practices. Solving crimes sooner reduces costs associated with misdirected investigations. With a DNA match, law enforcement can quickly narrow in on the right suspect, saving untold manhours and manpower used in traditional investigations. This cost savings can then be redirected to other crimes where DNA is not available and traditional investigation techniques are the only means of solving the crime. With a DNA match, persons wrongfully accused of committing a crime can be freed sooner. Consider the case of Robert Gonzalez who provided a false confession and was in danger of a wrongful conviction until a match was made on the DNA database -- a match to a DNA sample collected under Katie's Law from a felony arrestee. (Read more about this case here http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1445.php). With a DNA match, more crimes can be prevented, such as those in the Chicago Study, or the cases from California, Maryland, Texas, and Washington State. How do we put a price on the cost of saving a life or preventing a rape? What is the cost of knowing we could have done something to prevent these crimes, and chose not to?

Please read, Katie’s Law Success Story.