Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/31/1995 01:34 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 27
"An Act directing the Department of Public Safety to
establish and maintain a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
identification registration system and requiring DNA
registration by persons convicted of a felony sex
offense; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Parnell, the sponsor, observed that HB 27
would require the Department of Public Safety to draw blood
samples from persons convicted of a felony crime against a
person and authorizes the Department to use the samples in
establishing a DNA registration system for purposes of DNA
analysis. He noted that the original bill only specified
that sex offenders be sampled. He explained that the
recidivism rate of persons committing assaults led to the
addition of felons who commit crimes against a person. The
bill:
* Requires the establishment of a DNA registration
system by the Department of Public Safety;
* requires that a person convicted of a violent
offense against a person have a blood sample drawn
following their conviction for purposes of DNA
2
identification analysis;
* states that the DNA identification cannot be used
for any other purpose than criminal investigation;
and
* requires that the system be compatible with the
system used by the FBI.
Representative Parnell asserted that the legislation will
enable the identification of repeat offenders, act as a
deterrent and enable Alaska to modernize its investigations
and prosecution. He observed that fingerprinting was once
seen as a new technology.
Representative Parnell explained the sample will be taken as
part of the initial intake process.
JAY MILLER, CHIEF, FORENSIC SCIENCE CRIME LAB, FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION explained that he supplies software
to state and local crime laboratories that perform DNA
analysis and want to store and exchange DNA records as part
of the national DNA index system established by the FBI. He
noted that the software is provided free of charge.
Representative Brown asked the cost to type individual
samples. Mr. Miller observed that tests run from $50 to $75
dollars to type samples for storage in state and national
computer systems. He stressed that costs associated with a
court case would be greater. He added that states do not
generally contract out DNA analyses used in criminal cases.
He explained that the program is not mandatory. He expected
that states would adopt standards which would allow them to
tie in to the national database.
KRIS BEHEIM, STATEWIDE SCIENTIFIC CRIME LABORATORY,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY discussed the functions of the
Crime Lab in regards to HB 27. He noted that samples would
be received from the Department of Corrections and prepared
for long term storage.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, he
observed that samples can be retrieved from storage for DNA
sampling. He explained that samples can be used for
population studies using selective typing. He noted that
some of the methodologies available are too expensive to
employ at the present time. He anticipated that costs would
be lower in the future. Discussion ensued regarding DNA
typing methodology. Mr. Beheim explained that the method
used by the State was chosen based on cost. It is not the
most discriminating method. He observed that a sample can
be sent to a contract laboratory if a match is made to
ascertain a higher probability. He explained that the
methodology currently used by the State would need further
3
refinement to be used as a database. He estimated that one
additional position would be needed to database the samples.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr.
Beheim noted that the cost of producing a useful,
functioning database from the samples would be $50 to $80
dollars per sample if it is contracted out. The additional
position would not be needed if the typing was contracted.
DEL SMITH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
stated that the Department has not identified the potential
cost of typing DNA samples.
Representative Brown asked, if the Department received
additional funding for technology to improve law enforcement
in the State, would the DNA identification and registration
system would be the highest priority. Co-Chair Hanley
pointed out that DNA identification and registration would
make it easier to identify individuals with more certainty.
He added that investigation time and court cases may be
shortened.
Mr. Smith noted that suspects can be ruled out with DNA
identification. He emphasized that DNA typing will be
extremely useful. He could not say if DNA typing would be
handled in-house or through contracting. He was unable to
identify the Department's highest priority or the potential
cost of typing DNA samples which would be stored by the
Department.
Representative Brown asked if it is necessary to modify the
Alaska Public Safety Information Network (ASPIN). Mr. Smith
stressed the importance of modifying ASPIN. He noted that
law enforcement agencies could use ASPIN to determine if a
DNA sample existed for a suspect.
Representative Grussendorf asked if the present resident
prison population would be sampled. Representative Parnell
stated that the bill, in its present form, only addresses
those convicted after January 1, 1996. Representative
Grussendorf noted the recidivism rate among the current
prison population.
LAUREE HUGONIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT testified in support of
HB 27. She stressed that requiring DNA registration of
convicted felons can assist in the swift and accurate
apprehension and conviction of sex offenders. She
emphasized the high rate of recidivism of sex offenders.
She asserted that gathering DNA fingerprints will give the
criminal justice system more information with which to work
when a data bank becomes feasible. She asked the Committee
4
to consider the cost to victims.
Representative Parnell provided members with Amendment 1, by
the Department of Public Safety (Attachment 1). Mr. Beheim
explained that Amendment 1, part (1) would clarify that DNA
is identical in every cell within an individual. Amendment
1, part (2) would clarify that DNA typing is superior to
non-DNA genetic marker testing methods.
Representative Brown suggested that the amendment implies
that a DNA test will make a positive identification of a
person. She observed that the DNA typing proposed will not
result in a match to a particular individual as would a
fingerprint. Mr. Beheim agreed that current technology is
not as exact as a fingerprint. He noted that additional
markers are being added which will make the discrimination
factor higher. He estimated that DNA typing will approach
fingerprinting in the future in terms of identification.
Mr. Beheim interpreted the existing language to indicate
that each cell's DNA is unique. All cells in an individual
contain identical DNA.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-13, Side 2)
In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Mr.
Beheim acknowledged that DNA testing is more reliable in
eliminating suspects than in making positive
identifications.
Representative Brown pointed out that the benefits that can
accrue to an innocent person exist without the state data
bank of blood samples.
Mr. Beheim reviewed Amendment 1 in regards to page 2, lines
2 - 11. He noted that the amendment would delete language
requiring compatibility with the FBI laboratory. He
explained that the FBI does not have its own DNA database.
The FBI has developed the software they are using and
providing to states. He noted that the amendment also adds
the option of using an oral swab in lieu of a blood sample.
Representative Brown MOVED to divide the question.
Amendment 1A amends page 1, lines 7 - 13. Amendment 1B
amends page 2, lines 2 - 11.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
observed that the Findings section (page 1, lines 7 - 13)
would not impact the admissibility of evidence. He did not
feel that the finding section added or detracted from the
legislation. He stressed that he believed all the
5
statements listed in the findings section to be true.
Representative Brown asked if the technology provided by DNA
testing is superior to that provided by a fingerprint in
regards to the accuracy of identification. Mr. Guaneli
acknowledged that fingerprinting is more reliable than DNA
testing.
Mr. Beheim explained that DNA typing is more reliable than
standard blood typing.
Representative Parnell suggested the findings section be
deleted. He emphasized that he is not making a statement in
regards to the validity of the findings section. He
stressed that the findings section is unnecessary to
accomplish the goals of the bill.
Representative Parnell MOVED to delete page 1, lines 7 - 13.
Representative Brown stated that the accuracy of DNA testing
is not superior to presently existing techniques to making a
positive identification of an individual. There being NO
OBJECTION, the Findings Section, page 1, lines 7 - 13 was
removed.
Representative Parnell MOVED to adopt Amendment 1B.
Representative Brown expressed concern that the database be
compatible with that used by the FBI.
Mr. Beheim explained why language on page 2, lines 4-6 were
being removed. The FBI does not currently have its own
database. The FBI only supplies software. He stated that
any technique used by the State would be compatible with the
software. In response to a question by Representative
Brown, he explained that the identification system would be
a compilation of data collected by the State.
Representative Martin suggested that "swab" be deleted and
"sample" be added in Amendment 1B. Mr. Beheim agreed that
"sample" would be more flexible.
Representative Brown asked if more precise terms should be
used for "oral". Mr. Beheim noted that cellular material is
being collected from the inside of the cheek. Discussion
ensued in regards to the use of "oral".
Representative Parnell WITHDREW Amendment 1B. Co-Chair
Hanley explained that Amendment 1B would be revised and
reintroduced.
Representative Brown provided members with Amendment 2
(Attachment 2). She explained that the amendment would
expressly state that material within the identification
6
registration system is confidential and is not a public
record open to disclosure and may only be used in the ways
outlined by the amendment.
Representative Brown observed that legislation enacted in
the previous session created the Criminal Justice
Information System (HB 442). She noted that procedures and
checks were set to ensure that a person has access to their
own information. Safeguards and requirements are triggered
when data is within a unified system that is accessible by
someone else. She noted that the data collected as a result
of HB 27 will not be connected immediately but will
eventually be part of the Criminal Justice Information
System. She noted that the Alaska Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) has suggested that the right or access to individuals
DNA should be provided (The ACLU letter, dated 1/31/95, to
Co-Chair Hanley and Co-Chair Foster is on file).
Mr. Guaneli agreed that HB 442, enacted in the previous
legislative session, was not designed to address information
stored on a stand-alone personal computer for in-house use.
The data would not fall under the confidentiality
protections which were enacted until the information is
shared. He noted that violations of confidential material
released for improper purposes cannot be triggered unless
the data is specifically declared to be confidential.
In response to a question by Representative Parnell, Mr.
Guaneli clarified that the amendment would not hamper the
sharing of information at a future date. Representative
Parnell did not object to the amendment.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr.
Guaneli did not believe that AS 12.62.170 would apply to the
DNA data until the information is shared. He explained that
an accused would have access to the information.
Representative Brown asked if Mr. Guaneli would object to
applying the provisions regarding an accused to their own
information to the ASPIN stand alone database. Mr. Guaneli
could not respond to the question.
Representative Parnell provided members with Amendment 3
(Attachment 3). Representative Parnell MOVED to adopt
Amendment 3. He explained that Amendment 3 would add
juveniles adjudicated as delinquents or children in need of
aid for an act that would be a crime against a person if
committed by an adult. Representative Brown OBJECTED. She
suggested that a line needs to be drawn in regards to who is
tested. She pointed out that the amendment would result in
7
an increased fiscal cost. She questioned the addition of
"children in need of aid."
Mr. Guaneli explained that juveniles accused of a class A or
unclassified felony offense against a person are waived into
adult court. The amendment would add other felony offenses.
Juveniles involved in sexual assault in the second degree,
sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree, second and
third degree assault or second degree robbery would be
added. Juveniles using and threatening persons with guns
would be the primary additions. He noted that some
juveniles involved in armed robbery, which is classified as
first degree robbery, have been charged with a lesser degree
of robbery in order to allow the accused to remain in the
juvenile system. He estimated that 24 additional cases
would be included.
Mr. Guaneli discussed the addition of "children in need of
aid." He observed that "children in need of aid" is a
category usually reserved for abused and neglected children.
He did not know of a case in which a child was adjudicated
as a "child in need of aid" for a criminal act.
Representative Brown MOVED to AMEND Amendment 3, delete "or
children in need of aid." There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
Representative Parnell noted that the Ohio DNA Advisory
Council agreed that juveniles should be included in their
DNA database, not only because of the number of sex related
and violent crimes committee by them, but because of the
high recidivism among sex offenders.
In response to a questions by Representative Brown, Mr.
Guaneli was unable to give statistics on recidivism rates.
Representative Brown WITHDREW her OBJECTIONS to Amendment 3.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 3 as amended was
adopted.
(Tape Change, HFC 95-14, Side 1)
Representative Parnell MOVED to delete on page 2, lines 4 -
6, "The DNA identification registration system as
established shall be compatible with that utilized by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation". There being NO OBJECTION,
it was so ordered.
Representative Parnell provided members with Amendment 4
(Attachment 4). He amended his amendment to delete
reference to page 2, line 7 and deleted "or child in need of
aid" on page 3, line 11. Representative Parnell MOVED to
8
adopt Amendment 1.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr.
Guaneli explained that the Department of Public Safety has
administrative discretion to make reasonable judgments in
regards to purging data that is unreliable, has been tainted
or if the donor has died without statutory reference.
Mr. Guaneli suggested that "and or oral sample" be added to
references to "blood sample" in the bill. Representative
Parnell agreed that language in the bill needs to be
consistent. He suggested that a conceptual amendment be
adopted to conform language in the bill.
In response to a question by Representative Brown,
Representative Parnell explained that the Department of
Public Safety is transferring funding to the Department of
Corrections for the collection of samples. The Department
of Public Safety will store the samples and destroy samples
in event of a reversal of a conviction.
Representative Brown suggested that the committee consider
the addition of a definition for "oral".
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Representative Parnell MOVED to adopt a conceptional
amendment throughout CSHB 27 (FIN) to add "and/or oral
sample" to "blood sample". There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
In response to a question by Representative Kohring, Mr.
Beheim noted that confidentiality of collected data is
protected by laboratory guidelines and limited access to the
data bank or laboratory.
Representative Grussendorf asked if a person accused of a
crime would have access precluded to their DNA information
and the history of DNA evidence.
Mr. Guaneli stressed that the accused would be less
interested in samples taken during previous incarcerations
than samples taken at the scene of the accused crime and the
handling of the sample taken at the scene of a crime for
which they are accused. He emphasized that the State of
Alaska utilizes sophisticated methodology to protect the
sample.
Representative Brown referred to HB 25. She noted that HB
25 would change the rules of discovery. Discussion pursued
in regards to the appropriate vehicle to protect access of
an accused to their own DNA samples. She expressed her
9
desire to see a definition for "oral" sample and security
safeguards for the transmission of confidential data.
Discussion pursued in regards to the appropriate vehicle to
place protections for access of an accused to their DNA
samples. Representative Brown argued in favor of additional
safeguards to be placed in HB 27.
Representative Brown asserted that the fiscal notes do not
adequately reflect the real cost of the program.
Representative Parnell observed that the fiscal notes do
reflect the mandates placed by the legislation to develop a
database system. He acknowledged that the fiscal notes do
not reflect costs of typing the samples cataloged. The
Department will not begin typing samples until FY 97 or FY
98. Representative Brown suggested that the cost of typing
should be reflected in the appropriate years on the fiscal
note.
HB 27 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|