WHY COLLECT DNA?
Collecting DNA on felony arrests allows law enforcement to gain information on the possibility of the suspect being involved in other crimes. If a suspect is arrested for a rape, it would be incredibly inefficient to wait until that person is convicted for the rape before collecting and processing the DNA only to find out that their DNA matches the DNA evidence from multiple rape victims. Currently, many of our court systems are so backed up that the conviction could take years. A victim deserves to get answers as soon as possible. Delays in prosecution and investigation of other crimes the person may have involved in will cost money, time and pain. It could result in mistrials, cases being dropped, loss of witnesses, loss of evidence, and in some cases, statute of limitations expiring. No plea bargains should be struck until the DNA has been input into CODIS. Timing is critical. It can also exonerate the innocent.
Studies show there is a 40% chance that burglaries and other non-violent crimes are being committed by someone who has already committed violent crimes, perhaps even murder. If they haven’t, there is an 80% chance that they eventually will commit a violent crime. That means 40% these non-violent crime scenes could have evidence that would lead us to a match with evidence from a serious assault, rape or murder. It is important that our laws allow us to collect DNA from ALL FELONY arrests. We need to use this to our advantage and start balancing the scales of justice.
Virginia's Arrestee's Experience
The Maryland Study
The Denver Study
The Chicago Study
4th Amendment Concerns
Critics also argue that the taking of DNA from arrestees is in violation of the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. People on both sides of the issues, whether they are civil libertarians or supporters of DNA arrestee laws, have strong opinions about what the 4th Amendment actually protects.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Civil libertarians argue that DNA from arrestees violates their 4th Amendment rights because it constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. Proponents of DNA arrestee laws focus on the "probable cause" phrase in the Amendment. They claim that an arrestee's DNA can be taken because it is "probable cause" that caused them to be arrested in the first place. In recent years, as more and more states have passed legislation to take DNA of arrestees, some arrestees have challenged these laws on 4th Amendment grounds.
Charles Raines was indicted in Montgomery County, Maryland on charges of first degree rape, second degree rape and robbery. In August 2003, he filed suit. Raines claimed that the taking of his DNA was in violation of his 4th Amendment Rights. On January 29, 2004, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted the appellee's motion to suppress physical evidence because it found that the Maryland DNA Collection Act (Md. Code (2003), § 2-501 et. seq., of the Public Safety Article), was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But on August 26, 2004, the appellate court overturned the lower court and ruled that the DNA Collection Act does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court's opinion included: "The DNA profile thus serves the purpose of increasing the efficiency and accuracy in identifying individuals within a certain class of convicted criminals. The purpose is akin to that of a fingerprint". State v. Raines 857 A.2d 19, 33 (Md. 2004).
Similarly, on September 14, 2007, the Virginia Supreme Court, ruled in Anderson v. Commonwealth, that an arrestee's DNA sample, "is analogous to the taking of a suspect's fingerprints upon arrest and was not an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment." Anderson had his DNA taken upon his arrest in 2003 on unrelated charges of rape and sodomy. When his DNA profile was passed through the DNA Database it produced a "cold hit" to a woman that was raped, sodomized, and robbed in 1991.
And on January 20, 2007, the Supreme Court of New Jersey handed down a decision, supporting the taking of DNA of an arrestee in State v. O'Hagen, 914 A.2d 267, 280 (N.J. 2007). In this case the defendant entered a guilty plea in the Superior Court to third-degree possession of a controlled substance (heroin) and his sentence included the requirement of submitting to DNA testing. The defendant challenged this requirement and the challenge made its way to the state's Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that: (1) New Jersey's DNA Database and Databank Act of 1994 does not violate federal and state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches, and (2) the Act does not violate equal protections under federal and state constitutions.
For further information regarding DNA impacts the justice system and convictions and frees innocent please visit - http://www.dnaforensics.com/
Because DNA has become fingerprinting of the 21st century. We all need to work hard to ensure that all 50 states enact legislation to mandate collection of DNA on arrest. Currently, 25 states (see chart below) have passed some form of DNA on felony arrest legislation.
Collecting DNA on felony arrests allows law enforcement to gain information on the possibility of the suspect being involved in other crimes. If a suspect is arrested for a rape, it would be incredibly inefficient to wait until that person is convicted for the rape before collecting and processing the DNA only to find out that their DNA matches the DNA evidence from multiple rape victims. Currently, many of our court systems are so backed up that the conviction could take years. A victim deserves to get answers as soon as possible. Delays in prosecution and investigation of other crimes the person may have involved in will cost money, time and pain. It could result in mistrials, cases being dropped, loss of witnesses, loss of evidence, and in some cases, statute of limitations expiring. No plea bargains should be struck until the DNA has been input into CODIS. Timing is critical. It can also exonerate the innocent.
Studies show there is a 40% chance that burglaries and other non-violent crimes are being committed by someone who has already committed violent crimes, perhaps even murder. If they haven’t, there is an 80% chance that they eventually will commit a violent crime. That means 40% these non-violent crime scenes could have evidence that would lead us to a match with evidence from a serious assault, rape or murder. It is important that our laws allow us to collect DNA from ALL FELONY arrests. We need to use this to our advantage and start balancing the scales of justice.
Virginia's Arrestee's Experience
The Maryland Study
The Denver Study
The Chicago Study
4th Amendment Concerns
Critics also argue that the taking of DNA from arrestees is in violation of the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. People on both sides of the issues, whether they are civil libertarians or supporters of DNA arrestee laws, have strong opinions about what the 4th Amendment actually protects.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Civil libertarians argue that DNA from arrestees violates their 4th Amendment rights because it constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. Proponents of DNA arrestee laws focus on the "probable cause" phrase in the Amendment. They claim that an arrestee's DNA can be taken because it is "probable cause" that caused them to be arrested in the first place. In recent years, as more and more states have passed legislation to take DNA of arrestees, some arrestees have challenged these laws on 4th Amendment grounds.
Charles Raines was indicted in Montgomery County, Maryland on charges of first degree rape, second degree rape and robbery. In August 2003, he filed suit. Raines claimed that the taking of his DNA was in violation of his 4th Amendment Rights. On January 29, 2004, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted the appellee's motion to suppress physical evidence because it found that the Maryland DNA Collection Act (Md. Code (2003), § 2-501 et. seq., of the Public Safety Article), was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But on August 26, 2004, the appellate court overturned the lower court and ruled that the DNA Collection Act does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court's opinion included: "The DNA profile thus serves the purpose of increasing the efficiency and accuracy in identifying individuals within a certain class of convicted criminals. The purpose is akin to that of a fingerprint". State v. Raines 857 A.2d 19, 33 (Md. 2004).
Similarly, on September 14, 2007, the Virginia Supreme Court, ruled in Anderson v. Commonwealth, that an arrestee's DNA sample, "is analogous to the taking of a suspect's fingerprints upon arrest and was not an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment." Anderson had his DNA taken upon his arrest in 2003 on unrelated charges of rape and sodomy. When his DNA profile was passed through the DNA Database it produced a "cold hit" to a woman that was raped, sodomized, and robbed in 1991.
And on January 20, 2007, the Supreme Court of New Jersey handed down a decision, supporting the taking of DNA of an arrestee in State v. O'Hagen, 914 A.2d 267, 280 (N.J. 2007). In this case the defendant entered a guilty plea in the Superior Court to third-degree possession of a controlled substance (heroin) and his sentence included the requirement of submitting to DNA testing. The defendant challenged this requirement and the challenge made its way to the state's Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that: (1) New Jersey's DNA Database and Databank Act of 1994 does not violate federal and state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches, and (2) the Act does not violate equal protections under federal and state constitutions.
For further information regarding DNA impacts the justice system and convictions and frees innocent please visit - http://www.dnaforensics.com/
Because DNA has become fingerprinting of the 21st century. We all need to work hard to ensure that all 50 states enact legislation to mandate collection of DNA on arrest. Currently, 25 states (see chart below) have passed some form of DNA on felony arrest legislation.
