Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/26/2015 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB117 | |
| HB61 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 61 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 117 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 117-SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS
[Due to technical difficulties portions of audio are
indiscernible throughout.]
8:11:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced the first order of business was HOUSE BILL
NO. 117, HOUSE BILL NO. 117, "An Act requiring a report on
untested sexual assault examination kits; and providing for an
effective date."
8:12:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 117, labeled 29-LS0386\W, Martin,
3/24/15, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version W
was before the committee.
8:12:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 117, and explained that in terms of where
the sexual assault kits are sent and the timing in testing the
kits, there is disorganization in the current process. She said
Alaska has the highest rate of rape and sexual assault in the
nation, and opined that HB 117 is the first step in addressing
the issue.
8:14:32 AM
RAY FRIEDLANDER, Staff, Representative Geran Tarr, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tarr, prime sponsor,
explained that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) finds this
bill to be so important that it does not foresee any additional
funds or infrastructure requirement in implementing the audit
and preparing a report for the legislature. She referred to the
fiscal notes and advised that the original bill was drafted in a
manner that the attorney general would reach out to local law
enforcement agencies to obtain the number [of kits], prepare the
report, and deliver the report to the legislature. She pointed
out that the first fiscal note is $15,000; however, the
Department of Public Safety, subsequent to that fiscal note,
expressed willingness to "take this project on" at zero dollars
because it is "that important."
MS. FRIEDLANDER, in response to Chair Lynn, advised there is a
zero fiscal note.
8:15:34 AM
MS. FRIEDLANDER relayed that under Version W of HB 117, local
law agencies will, by July 1, 2015, report the number of
untested sexual assault kits in their possession. In response
to Chair Lynn, she confirmed that this relates to kits already
used, but not yet analyzed. She said DPS will compile a report,
by September 1, 2015, detailing the number of untested sexual
assault examination kits stored by each law enforcement agency,
the date each kit was collected, and present the report to the
legislature. She then referred to page 2, line 10, of HB 117,
which read:
(d) In this section, "untested sexual assault
examination kit" means a sexual assault examination
kit that has been collected but has not been submitted
to a laboratory operated or approved by the Department
of Public Safety for either a serological or DNA test.
MS. FRIEDLANDER advised this is a definition of an untested
sexual assault examination kit.
8:18:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for clarification of changes that
were made in Version W. She pointed to bill language on page 1,
[Section 1], of HB 117, [regarding which entity would get an
inventory of untested sexual assault examination kits].
MS. FRIEDLANDER made a comment about how the length of "attorney
general" [the entity chosen in the original bill version] and
"Department of Public Safety" [the entity changed to in Version
W] were different, and how that might affect where they fell
along a line.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR spoke about the change from "the attorney
general", [on page 1, line 12, of the original bill], to "the
Department of Public Safety", [on page 1, line 13, of Version
W].
8:20:03 AM
MS. FRIEDLANDER explained that a sexual assault kit or rape kit
is a kit or box filled with tools that may be used by an
examiner while collecting evidence, such as the perpetrator's
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), and from the sexual assault victim.
The contents of the kit vary by state, she noted, but could
include the following: bags and sheets, swabs, combs, envelopes,
blood collection devices, and documentation forms. She said
Orin Dym, forensic laboratory manager of DPS's Scientific Crime
Detection Laboratory (SCDL), was present to testify and would
provide a demonstration. She relayed that the exam, in addition
to those materials, can also contain a physical component
wherein the examiner collects (indisc.).
8:20:57 AM
CHAIR LYNN (indisc.) the kit and other medical procedures.
MS. FRIEDLANDER stated she believes so, and deferred to Mr. Dym.
She continued that the evidence is compiled into the sexual
assault kit, stored to ensure contamination does not occur, and
maintained under a chain of custody until further action is
taken with the kit. An area of concern, she pointed out, is
that some of the sexual assault kits are shelved by their
respective agencies for a variety of reasons and are
[unprocessed]. (Indisc.) the State of Alaska does not have a
single, uniform protocol utilized by the 150 law enforcement
agencies to do the same. She said that, in essence, there could
be a local law enforcement agency in Alaska [in possession of]
untested sexual assault kits potentially containing DNA that
could remove rapists from Alaska's streets. Unfortunately,
there is no data base or manner to manage untested, shelved
sexual assault kits, she explained. (Indisc.) there has been a
national movement, and states conducting audits have found
thousands of untested sexual assault kits sitting on their
shelves contributing to a major rape kit backlog. In response
to a question from Chair Lynn, she confirmed that those audits
had been done in other states. (Indisc) three times the
national average (indisc.). She suggested the capture of
rapists was delayed by not having the kits processed, and she
questioned why the kits were not being processed.
8:23:14 AM
CHAIR LYNN opined that if someone was raped, an examination
would be performed with a rape kit and possibly shelved
someplace and, as a result, the DNA from the rapist would not be
tested. He pointed out that if the DNA was tested, it may be
possible to match it with someone already on file. He ventured
that there are serial rapists running loose on the streets whose
DNA is on file, but because of the delay in testing the kits
these rapists are not arrested. He clarified that while his
statement is not a fact, it could be occurring.
MS. FRIEDLANDER answered that is correct. She offered her
understanding that the current practice is to process the
perpetrator's DNA when available; however, before the Combined
DNA Index System (CODIS) - a database used by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) - existed, it was difficult for states to
process DNA, so some states kept untested rape kits dating back
to the '70s and '80s. She added she was not comfortable
speaking "on that particular topic," but noted she had "a
variety of reasons why kits aren't tested."
CHAIR LYNN (indisc.) and while there may not be a known suspect,
someone's DNA may be on file [from some other crime].
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered that the prosecution of these cases
may not happen immediately because the case may not go to trial
for a long period of time. She highlighted that for the period
of time the testing has not taken place, that individual may be
committing other crimes; therefore, she pointed out, expediency
to the process is vital.
CHAIR LYNN surmised that the matter will not go to trial without
a suspect, and the suspect will not be found until the DNA is
tested.
8:26:33 AM
MS. FRIEDLANDER advised that working in conjunction with Senator
Berta Gardner, the bill sponsor asked Legislative Legal and
Research Services to conduct a research brief to determine: how
many untested kits are in Alaska, which laboratories have a
backlog, and the reasons [the kits were untested]. She said the
aforementioned Mr. Dym, when asked by Legislative Legal and
Research Services about the number of kits, responded, "I don't
know - the department does not know how many completed sexual
assault evidence collection kits have been utilized by the law
enforcement agency but not yet submitted to the crime lab for
testing." Further, she said, Alaska has no policy, regulation,
or statute establishing timeframes for testing sexual assault
kits, and no federal mandate requires coordination. She
reiterated that Alaska has 150 local law enforcement agencies,
and it is difficult to know how many untested sexual assault
kits there are, even at SCDL.
8:27:45 AM
MS. FRIEDLANDER said that prior to February 1, 2015, there were
no requirements by SCDL to return the kits back from local law
enforcement agencies, hospitals, or other agencies. She said
beginning February 1, SCDL requires that all kits are sent back
to the lab, which could offer a better understanding of the
number of kits collected and analyzed; however, the requirement
was made only of the Alaska State Troopers (AST) and does not
include all of the 150 local law enforcement agencies in the
state. Further, it does not require the State Troopers to send
in kits [collected] prior to February 1, 2015. She explained
that SCDL has a thorough protocol for logging evidence such as
rape kits, but no procedure to capture the data or create a
uniform process to ensure kits are not lost or shelved. She
related that when agencies send a kit into the lab, it may label
the kit in a completely different manner than SCDL's label,
which could make accounting for the kits difficult. In response
to Chair Lynn, she confirmed there is no standardization of
labeling.
8:29:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered that as it was described by Mr. Dym,
rape kits come to SCDL with language in the manner the officer,
or whoever processed it, wrote it - with no standard protocol;
therefore, there is no easy way to compare notes, because people
use a different set of terms to describe the materials
submitted.
8:30:27 AM
MS. FRIEDLANDER directed attention to a Legislative Legal and
Research Services research brief, [from Tim Spengler,
Legislative Analyst, to Senator Gardner, dated 2/13/15, included
in the committee packet], which indicates the number of kits
tested in Alaska in each of the last five years, and shows that
443 kits had been tested in 2014. She then referred to an email
correspondence [from Dean Williams, Special Assistant, DPS, to
Ms. Friedlander, dated 3/24/15, included in the committee
packet], which contains a report submitted by [Mr. Dym] that
indicates 395 kits were submitted in 2014. She said Mr. Dym
explained the reason for the discrepancy was that he had thought
the researcher from Legislative Legal and Research Services had
asked for the number of cases - not kits. Ms. Friedlander
explained that this, again, shows the difficulty in terminology:
a case may have many different rape kits linked with it, because
there could be one used for the suspect and another for the
victim. She explained another reason for the discrepancy could
be that they were processing rape kit backlog from previous
years. She noted the sponsor was surprised in that this is such
an important and complicated issue, yet no protocols have been
developed.
8:32:04 AM
MS. FRIEDLANDER directed attention to an article from Alaska
Dispatch News, entitled, "New FBI definition increases Alaska's
already high rape rate," [included in the committee packet].
She advised the FBI lists that there were 922 rapes in Alaska in
2013, while the aforementioned brief lists 617 for the same
year. Provided that the rape kits were used in conjunction with
every rape, she questioned what happened to the approximately
300 kits not processed and why they did not get tested. She
expressed that the thought of serial rapists on the streets
because of untested kits is frightening. She noted that the
difficulty in conveying information from the state's crime lab
alone - not including the 150 local law enforcement agencies -
further demonstrates the need for an audit.
MS. FRIEDLANDER said DPS has been supportive and guarantees that
an audit will not require additional infrastructure or staff
time, thereby, allowing a zero fiscal note. Local law
enforcement agencies, such as the Anchorage Police Department,
have begun submitting numbers and untested sexual assault kits
[in anticipation of the passage of HB 117]. She remarked that
the respective agencies involved understand the importance of an
audit as the first step in addressing successful management of
the kits.
8:33:38 AM
MS. FRIEDLANDER stressed that the audit will not only shed light
on the extent of the untested sexual kit backlog, but also help
qualify Alaska to receive money from the U.S. Department of
Justice, the Office of Justice Programs, and "the Bureau of
Justice" in addressing Alaska's backlog. She explained that
being able to include, in these grants, information such as:
Alaska has "X" amount of kits, reasons why they have not been
tested, and information on the staff and laboratory capabilities
charged with processing the kits, will best assist Alaska in
qualifying for these available funds.
8:35:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether it is possible for the
victim to choose to not have a kit tested.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that the victim could choose not to
press charges, and the rape kit would not automatically have to
be tested.
CHAIR LYNN clarified that the question was whether a victim
could choose not to be tested. In response to Representative
Tarr, he stated that pressing charges and choosing not to be
tested are two different issues.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that SCDL receives a request for
services from the prosecuting agency, but if the crime is not
prosecuted, there would be no request for service. She added,
"So, there's the potential for that to be another problem."
8:36:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether (indisc.) came from the
prosecutor's office rather than from a law enforcement agency.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR opined they could come from both, as the law
enforcement agency would be working in conjunction with the
prosecuting agency.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for further details regarding what
happens if a victim does not want the kit to be tested and
notifies the police officer or trooper in that regard.
8:37:37 AM
MR. FRIEDLANDER deferred to Mr. Dym, but reiterated that she had
a list of reasons as to why kits go untested.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked how many victims request that the
kits not be tested.
MS. FRIEDLANDER again deferred the question to Mr. Dym.
8:38:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested the aforementioned list.
MS. FRIEDLANDER named the following reasons: cost of analysis -
local law enforcement agencies sometimes only pursue cases with
the best chance of being solved; cases in which the alleged
rapist is not a stranger to the victim whereby the suspect's
identity was not an issue; the victim decided not to pursue
prosecution; other issues with evidence, witnesses, or victims,
resulting in a decision that the case was not prosecutable; the
lab was contacted by the submitting agency to withdraw the
request for analysis; the kit was collected beyond the timeframe
in which detectable, scientific evidence would remain; analysis
would not yield interpretable findings owing to the limitations
of the scientific method; tests with low scientific value may
take up to 14 months; anonymous reporting; cases not
prosecutable; issues related to consent; and the kit was not
submitted to the lab. She said the audit is important in that
it could, at least, highlight why the kit had not been
processed. She suggested that catching even one rapist through
processing untested sexual assault kits would be worth [the
effort] for Alaska.
8:40:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked who ultimately decides whether to
prosecute.
MS. FRIEDLANDER said she was not sure.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested it was the Department of Law
(DOL) and asked whether the audit process includes asking
questions of DOL, since that department makes the ultimate
decision.
8:40:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR opined that DPS would coordinate the effort
of compiling necessary information, and it would be included as
one of the agencies among the 150 law enforcement and other
agencies that would be a part of this. She indicated that DOL
would also submit information that would be part of the audit.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that DOL makes the ultimate
decision to prosecute, and suggested the sponsor speak with DOL
to "find out additional information" because without doing so
"you won't get the ultimate decider."
8:41:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ noted (indisc.) definitive decision as it
is ultimately the prosecutor (indisc.) gets a file and has the
kit tested believing it is a good case, (indisc.) that decision
before he submits the case to the prosecutor is her interest.
She noted that historically there was a "bad" backlog within
SCDL before the new crime lab was built. Usually, she said, the
prosecutor had to specifically request the testing because law
enforcement did not want to proceed with the testing if the
prosecutor was not going forward with the case. She recommends
clarifying that point rather than making assumptions.
8:42:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked the sponsor's staff to submit the
list of reasons she previously read.
MS. FRIEDLANDER relayed that the list is within the
aforementioned Legislative Legal and Research Service's research
brief. She directed attention to [a letter from the Texas
Department of Public Safety, dated 3/4/15, included in the
committee packet], which lists reasons relating to its own
untested sexual assault kits, which at one time reached 20,000.
8:43:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG ventured that another dimension to [the
backlog] is a lack of resources. He added that SCDL would
accomplish more if it had more money and "that comes back to
us." He encouraged the sponsor to "take the circle around."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed appreciation for Representative
Gruenberg's comments, and acknowledged that lack of resources is
a factor in the low number of cases actually going to trial and
is something that warrants consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded, "You bet, because then we
know where the faults may really lie."
8:45:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ said with regard to that, the Office of
the District Attorney has historically been chronically
understaffed and under-resourced which made it impossible to
prosecute everything in need of prosecution. She asked whether
an audit of this issue was being conducted, or about to be
conducted, regarding the backlog in SCDL.
MS. FRIEDLANDER answered that she had not heard of such an
audit, especially on the untested sexual assault kits, because
this audit wouldn't just be about SCDL as it would also
coordinate the number of untested sexual assault kits in the 150
local law enforcement agencies, hospitals, and other
departments.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ offered her understanding that an overall
audit on SCDL was scheduled in order to ascertain what was being
tested or not tested, and she said she would like more
information. She opined that the sponsor's timelines look good,
but may not be consistent with the overall audit. She cautioned
that without considering the overall comprehensive audit, the
audit proposed under HB 117 could end up being disjointed.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR deferred to Mr. Dym, and she explained she
was not aware of an overall audit being planned, although, HB 40
would require performance reviews. She offered that perhaps DPS
is next in line for a performance review, and SCDL would be part
of that consideration. She stressed that the overall goal is
expediency and efficiency in this process. She noted that Dean
Williams, of DPS, was interested in potentially moving back the
dates in the legislation a bit, but that has not been discussed
in conjunction with any other audit.
8:48:35 AM
ORIN DYM, Forensic Laboratory Manager, Scientific Crime
Detection Laboratory (SCDL), Department of Public Safety (DPS),
relayed that under statute, SCDL and DOL are charged with
developing sexual assault kits and forms; therefore, the lab
makes it a priority to provide the kits to agencies across the
state free of charge. He explained that from the moment a case
comes into the lab via a request for analysis, the lab knows
exactly what it has and where it is at all times. He said the
lab does not know the status of kits not submitted back to the
lab.
8:50:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said it had been portrayed to the
committee that DPS is eager for HB 117 to pass, which strikes
him as odd because it would increase the cost of analysis, and
yet there is a zero fiscal note. He said he would like to hear
from DPS, on paper, with regard to its stance on HB 117.
MR. DYM, responding from the perspective of SCDL, said that
determining what kits have not been submitted that should be
submitted is a good thing. He deferred addressing the specifics
on how that occurs to a department head.
8:52:07 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Mr. Dym whether the lab matches the number of
kits that are sent in with the number it sent out.
MR. DYM responded that the kit is an inventory item for agencies
that order a year's supply of kits at one time. For example,
the Anchorage Police Department orders (indisc.). He said
another complication in tracking the kits is that many of the
AST posts become distribution hubs for agencies beyond them.
For example, the AST in Bethel may order 80 kits, which are then
pushed out to other regions. In response to a follow-up
question from Chair Lynn, he estimated that at any given time
there are approximately 500 kits in inventory within different
agencies throughout the state.
8:53:29 AM
MR. DYM, in response to Representative Vazquez, shared his
professional background. In response to a follow-up question
from Representative Vazquez, he described the process by which
the sexual assault test kits are submitted as evidence to the
lab, and explained that law enforcement agencies submit a
request for laboratory service form - a contract to perform work
on the evidence submitted. He said police agencies submit the
evidence, but the lab also communicates with DOL, which may be
involved in the decision-making on some of the larger cases.
8:55:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked the average time required to test a
kit.
MR. DYM clarified that when considering service for sexual
assault, a kit could be a single item of evidence or a multi-
evidentiary item request for service; "it's not the only
evidence that's submitted." He stated that the lab could
complete a test in 24 hours when the need was urgent, but that
is not the normal turnaround time. Routine analysis, start to
finish, of a DNA case is six weeks, and cases are worked in
batches for efficiency's sake. He explained that the current
average turnaround time for DNA cases - including all types of
crimes, not just sexual assault - is 170 days. He related that
the oldest sexual assault request goes back to 16 months from
today's date, which he said is a vast improvement over the six-
plus years previously. He stated that SCDL has been making
tremendous headway on the backlog, and although not where it
wants to be yet, it will continue to make improvements.
CHAIR LYNN commented that it could take six months from the time
the lab receives the kit back before the test results are
available.
MR. DYM reiterated that the oldest sexual assault case currently
waiting at the lab to be analyzed is 1.5 years old.
8:57:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked what could be done to shorten that
timeline.
MR. DYM offered that SCDL has invested time in reworking how it
approaches scientific examination and brought in several
independent experts to evaluate the process and make
recommendations in streamlining it. He indicated that a goal is
to increase training and the number of analysts performing DNA
tests. He offered that the lab recently completed retooling the
entire process of biological screening, and a supervisor
presented a paper in that regard to the American Academy of
Forensic Science, because the lab stepped into a leadership
position on how it screens sexual assault cases. In response to
Representative Vazquez' follow-up question, he said the process
took "so long" because the lab has more business than it could
complete in a timely fashion. When losing an experienced staff
member, it takes the lab one to two years to replace that
individual at the same experience level and capacity, he said.
CHAIR LYNN expressed amazement at the length of time it takes to
receive results.
8:59:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ commented that she is not amazed, and
asked whether either the previous or current governor [had
intervened], with regard to setting forth an action plan to
remedy the situation of 1.5 years.
MR. DYM replied that he routinely reports to the deputy
commissioner and the commissioner of DPS, and that the
information has gone on to the governor's office as to the plan
in addressing the backlog. He concurred that 1.5 years is an
excessive quantity of time; however, he views it as a definite
improvement over six-plus years, with a goal of a 30-day
turnaround time on cases.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ restated her question to inquire whether
anyone within the lab - Mr. Dym's director or anybody in a
leadership position - had attempted to acquire more resources to
solve this issue and submitted "some type of action plan to
correct or remedy the situation."
MR. DYM noted that within the last fiscal year, the lab
requested and was granted an additional position for DNA
analysis to attempt to reduce the turnaround time. He indicated
that part of the funding request for the new crime laboratory
was to "ease congestion" and increase [productivity] through the
use of "the DNA sciences."
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ questioned the additional resources the
lab requires.
MR. DYM indicated he has sufficient equipment, space, and
staffing to accomplish the aforementioned goal, but then asked
the desired time frame in accomplishing the goal. He offered
that if the goal is 30 days, he recommends outsourcing the
backlog to a private laboratory, although that would probably
take about a year to accomplish. He estimated that the lab is
on track to catch up with the work itself in approximately two
years, assuming he does not lose staff.
9:02:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ opined that two years is a long time for
a victim's case to come to justice.
MR. DYM concurred and said there are a number of options,
especially in a scenario in which "they're going to throw a pile
of money at this and outsource it." He offered that 150 sexual
assault cases could take approximately eight to twelve months
for a private laboratory to complete. He indicated that if he
could materialize five experienced DNA analysts at his doorstep,
he could achieve the same result; however, there are no contract
DNA analysts available to hire in long-term, non-permanent
positions. He reiterated that subsequent to losing one
experienced analyst, it took him one year to find another
analyst who would accept a job offer in Alaska, and another few
months to get them working - approximately a year and half to
recover that productivity.
9:04:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether compensation is the issue
in attracting qualified applicants.
MR. DYM answered that the lab pays at about the forty-eighth
percentile in the country, and receives between 0-1 qualified
applicants from a national search, and then loses the applicants
when they discover they may never be able to afford a home in
Anchorage, which is a large issue. He offered that it is not
just in the realm of DNA testing, but in other areas of the lab,
such as finding a latent print analysts. He added, "I will say
Scottsdale Police Department has also been advertising for the
same timeframe, offering $30,000 a year more than we do, and has
not successfully filled their position."
9:06:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether Mr. Dym had any
suggestions.
MR. DYM said the backlog at SCDL is his job to manage, and while
he plans to methodically improve it and increase capacity, it is
not an instantaneous process. He explained that the lab just
retooled (indisc.) multiple screening (indisc.). He stated that
currently when a case comes to the lab, within 30 days the
initial process is complete, and a report is sent to the agency
with those findings. He said SCDL is "getting more information
today to give to them than they got a year ago." He noted the
next step is to determine how to increase capacity per analyst.
He suggested bringing in entities to study the process and offer
input; however, he said the current budget is "tight for things
of that nature."
MR. DYM, in response to a series of questions from
Representative Vazquez, offered that SCDL's operating budget is
$6 million. He related that there are currently 24 positions,
and of that $6 million, personnel expenses are $3.8 million. He
said the annual costs for the electric bill and natural gas bill
are $240,000 and $100,000, respectively. He indicated that SCDL
has (indisc.) million in prorates, which pay for network
infrastructure, telephone support, the Office of the
Commissioner's fee, and administrative services.
9:08:48 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Mr. Dym if he had given any of this information
to the House Finance Committee.
MR. DYM responded that this was the first time a breakdown of
expenditures had been requested. He reiterated that point at
the request of Representative Vazquez.
CHAIR LYNN opined that both the House and Senate Finance
Committees need to receive this information.
9:09:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO recollected that the bill sponsor
mentioned there were inconsistencies in collection of the kits
and information received by SCDL, and he asked whether Mr. Dym
is aware of the training of the people required to collect the
specimens and why there might be inconsistencies in the
information SCDL receives. He asked whether the lab ever
rejected a kit because it was improperly collected or pertinent
information was missing.
MR. DYM answered that SCDL has made changes to its online
requests for laboratory services and, as of October [2014], the
online form requires additional information in mandatory fields
for the sexual assault kit in that when the sexual assault kit
box is checked, a supplemental sheet appears requiring
additional information in mandatory fields to close that gap.
He said when an officer submits a kit, he/she provides an
evidence item, along with a description in a "free-text"
description field. He said the descriptions vary widely,
including: "kit," "kit collected from" - and the individual's
name, and "evidence collected." He said predominantly the word
"kit" is utilized, which is helpful when doing a keyword search
to determine how many kits the lab has. He specified that if
someone gives him the name of a case, he can look into it and
report exactly what the evidence is on that case, but he said
that is "a little bit of a different search." He said that is
where the inconsistency comes out. He related that the
submitting agency owns the information it sends to SCDL, and the
lab's job is to do the analysis; therefore, the lab does not
alter their descriptions, because it is their evidence.
9:11:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO presumed there are a set of standards
for collection, but he wondered whether training is lacking in
terms of putting kits together, such as seals, date, and
initials. He reiterated his question as to whether some kits
may become tainted and unusable due to lack of training, and
whether Mr. Dym feels the manner in which kits are submitted to
the lab are sufficient or tainted in some manner.
MR. DYM explained that a lot of training is given through the
Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) training program; the
biological screeners actively working the kits go "out" to SART
trainings and, as part of the program, provide presentations on
the kits regarding what is performed at the laboratory. He said
the kits are being collected appropriately with a good set of
instructions, but the real issue is why a kit does not come to
the laboratory. He described the current business model - which
he said may have to change - as follows:
We are scientific analysis. If there are questions to
be answered for the prosecution of a case, and the
scientific evidence is needed to answer that question,
we work it. In situations where scientific analysis
did not add value or was not needed for verification,
then the evidence was not sent to the crime laboratory
because it was not needed. Some examples of that
would be a consent case, where presence of the suspect
to the victim is not in question, so scientific
analysis does not yield an answer necessary for
prosecution. I will add, though, keep in mind we are
an arrestee state: since 2007, if you are arrested of
a crime against a person, you provide a sample and we
put that in the database. So, in that case, the
suspect is still going into the national database for
searching against other cases. So, that need is being
met.
In the case of a no-suspect offense, that should be
coming to the crime lab. I -- not being an
investigator, I'm not sure what circumstance would
give rise to that not being analyzed.
9:14:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ reiterated her concern regarding the 170
days taken to test the kits, and Mr. Dym's best suggestion in
the fastest manner to deal with the backlog, and what resources
are needed to address it.
MR. DYM replied that currently SCDL has the capacity to handle
what comes in, while making significant decreases in the
backlog. He recommended outsourcing the suspect cases, in which
there is a known suspect, out of the backlog. He emphasized
that in no-suspect cases, it is critical to get the profiles
into the national database for searching. He explained that
private laboratories do not have permission to upload data into
that national database; that work falls upon SCDL. He opined
that relieving the lab of suspect cases would allow it to
concentrate on the backlog of no-suspect cases, and both
projects would merge and complete simultaneously, and that could
be the last time a backlog in sexual assault cases is discussed
at the lab. In response to Representative Vasquez, he relayed
that he has 60 no-suspect kits, and 111 suspect kits.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked how fast Mr. Dym could get the 111
suspect kits outsourced.
MR. DYM answered he would have to follow state procurement
procedures, and indicated the last procurement bid process he
oversaw took three months. In response to Representative
Vazquez' follow-up questions, he said if he has funding to
commit to the project, he could start the process tomorrow. He
estimated the funding required would be $3,000 per case,
multiplied by 111. In response to Chair Lynn, he clarified that
one contract could be made for all 111 kits.
9:19:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether Mr. Dym could find the
necessary $333,000 anywhere in his budget.
MR. DYM answered that based upon the latest budgetary
projections, SCDL's budget will be at zero by July 1, 2015. In
response to Representative Vazquez' follow-up question, he
responded that the budget for the upcoming year on the Senate
and House side is largely unchanged, with the exception that the
vacant position for a Forensic Scientist III for the Controlled
Substances Discipline was relinquished. He said that discipline
has an average turnaround time of 18 days; therefore, he would
be hard-put to (indisc.) that position.
9:20:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what can be done - in looking at
the system as a whole, not just legislatively, but budget-wise -
to make the system more effective, accurate, and expedient.
MR. DYM indicated the question may be too large in scope for him
to be able to come up with an answer on the spot. Nevertheless,
he spoke about avenues he has been pursuing to improve the
system. He said he has been discussing the issue with police
chiefs and representatives of the state's major submitting
agencies to determine how best to close the gap in
misunderstandings and improve service with each other. He
offered that the DOL is also present at that table, as is the
FBI representing federal agencies. He noted it is an excellent
avenue in ascertaining they all are working together and
determining what is important.
9:23:07 AM
LIEUTENANT RODNEY DIAL, Deputy Commander, A Detachment, Division
of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
advised that the number of sexual assault kits with the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) is relatively few, as the
department's policy is to submit the kits to SCDL after they are
obtained. Under the proposed legislation, he noted, DPS is
required to verify information with 150 agencies across the
state and prepare a report. He offered that the department is
concerned about the timeline in which it is required to do so.
He said that allowing the department a few additional months to
obtain the information may result in greater participation and
better information in determining individual cases. Lieutenant
Dial related that he asked his evidence technicians to conduct a
search of the trooper facilities in Southeast Alaska for
untested sexual assault kits and advised the total was four
kits: two were obtained in cases later determined to be
unfounded, and two were from cases where prosecution was
declined and the testing of the kits was not requested by the
Office of the District Attorney. He indicated that in other
areas of the state, there are larger evidence facilities, and as
an example, Fairbanks has approximately 20,000 items stored, so
the search and research of kits will take longer.
Notwithstanding that, he added that DPS determined it can
[handle the inventory] with its existing personnel and a [zero]
fiscal note. He offered examples of instances wherein kits are
obtained, but do not warrant testing, such as: the sex act was
not contested, and the issue is consent; the issue later
determined to be unfounded; the kit was obtained from a suspect
who subsequently died; it was believed the kit did not contain
useable DNA evidence; or the victim requested the kit not be
examined, but wanted it retained.
9:26:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there are frequent
occasions wherein the victim declines prosecution in domestic
abuse cases.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered "not so much," in that DPS has
approached domestic violence cases for many years from the
standpoint that the state will take up the case on behalf of the
victim - sometimes without the victim's participation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the prosecutor [technical
difficulties] when there has been coercion for the victim to
"back off," whether the state goes after that perpetrator.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that any time there is an initial
report from the victim, who later recants, the first
consideration of DPS and the Office of the District Attorney is
of coercion. He advised if the state can prove a case where an
individual intentionally puts pressure on a victim not to
participate in the prosecution, they look into it for possible
additional charges.
9:29:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated his assumption that every
controlled inventory item has a number, and he pointed to the
legislation that discusses examination kits collected but not
submitted to a lab for various reasons. He asked the definition
of that terminology and whether Trooper Dial anticipates any
change.
9:31:17 AM
LIEUTENANT DIAL replied that the department's current policy is
that all kits go to SCDL, so the kits in the possession of the
department are "legacy cases." He described those cases as
being fairly old, or cases where the kit was obtained with
"real" odd circumstances that made sending it to the lab
unwarranted. For example, he explained, if he collected a kit
from a suspect today and tomorrow the suspect dies, the case
might not be sent in, although, it is their policy to send every
case to SCDL, which could be the reason some of the older cases
are still in DPS's evidence facilities. He advised that the
department does not track unused kits. He added, "That could be
problematic ...." He explained that occasionally the kits are
positioned in different locations, such as their medical
facilities, and sometimes the kits are (indisc. - overlapping
voices), while other times the kits may become damaged. He
said, "Sometimes we'll take those kits and cannibalize them and
use elements of that kit for (indisc. - shuffling noise) crimes.
He pointed out that once a kit is collected, strict electronic
tracking of that kit is implemented and it is considered
evidence.
9:33:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked what a kit is called that has been
used to collect evidence but not returned to SCDL.
LIEUTENANT DIAL advised it is referred to as an evidence item
and, under definition in the electronic records management
system, as a "sexual assault kit."
9:34:38 AM
SKYLER HEARN, Assistant Director, Law Enforcement Support
Division, Texas Department of Public Safety, advised that he
oversees the Law Enforcement Support Division, which includes
the crime laboratory service, and was asked to participate in
this hearing as a resource on the bill. He said he has more
agencies to poll, but the timeframe provided in which to report
the number of untested kits to the Texas Department of Public
Safety was 45 days. He advised it began 9/1/2012, and as of
January 2015 the department was still receiving reports. He
pointed out that most agencies in Texas do not have an
electronic method of identifying whether or not a piece of
evidence has been to a crime lab, so they have to go through
every file and every kit to determine whether it has been sent
and analyzed and returned or has not been tested.
9:36:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ referred to page 1, line 9, with regard
to "untested sexual examination kits", and opined there could be
confusion over a non-tested, brand new kit that has been sent by
SCDL to the law enforcement agency and sits in inventory versus
a kit wherein evidence has been collected and is sitting on a
shelf, untested. She pointed out those are two different
untested kits. She suggested distinguishing between the
different kits, and said she would like to see an amendment
clarifying that issue.
9:37:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR advised she could work with the department
in determining the language, and the audit that would follow
would distinguish between the two. In response to a question
from Chair Lynn, she stated she would work with the department
to address concerns and give the information to the committee.
9:39:07 AM
HILARY MARTIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, pointed out that the bill
does have a definition of untested sexual assault examination
kits, which means a kit that has been collected but not
submitted.
MS. MARTIN, in response to Chair Lynn's question, agreed to work
with the sponsor to clarify issues.
CHAIR LYNN announced HB 117 was held in committee.