Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/08/1995 01:59 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SJUD - 3/8/95
HB 27 DNA TESTING OF VIOLENT OFFENDERS
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:59 p.m. The first order of business was CSHB 27
(FIN)am.
RICHARD VITALE, legislative aide to Representative Parnell,
explained HB 27 allows for the collection of samples for DNA
testing. Both the sponsor and the Department of Law feel this is
an important procedure used in investigations for the conviction of
repeat sexual and violent offenders. Collection of samples will be
an important tool to be used at a later date.
SENATOR ELLIS asked at what point in the process the DNA sample is
taken. MR. VITALE replied the sample is taken upon conviction, by
the Department of Corrections when the offender enters the
correctional facility, and billed through the Department of Public
Safety.
SENATOR ELLIS questioned who will be responsible for maintaining
the records, and for how long. MR. VITALE replied the blood sample
will be stored by the Anchorage Crime Lab.
DR. WALKENSHAW, Anchorage Crime Lab, clarified the blood samples
would be dried and stored indefinitely. Currently samples are
stored in a walk-in freezer and are not destroyed. SENATOR ELLIS
asked if the samples deteriorate appreciably over time, and whether
the test results could be recorded and filed in lieu of keeping the
actual sample in storage. DR. WALKENSHAW stated the samples are
maintained because new testing methodologies are evolving.
SENATOR ADAMS noted a recent newspaper article disclosed that
evidence had recently been mishandled or misplaced by the Anchorage
Crime Lab. He asked what the penalty is for violating the
confidentiality provisions included in CSHB 27(Fin)am.
Number 087
GEORGE TAFT, Director of the Anchorage Crime Lab, stated the
situation reported in the Anchorage newspaper is currently under
investigation, and they will be able to answer the question
regarding confidentiality after the investigation is complete.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented the committee is unable to wait for the
conclusion of the audit, and asked Mr. Taft for recommendations
regarding the types of penalties for violation of confidentiality.
Number 106
MR. TAFT replied the specimen storage is done under strict
supervision and the specimens or evidence would be kept
confidential.
DEAN GUANELI, Department of Law, commented that in any storage
procedure, property can get lost, but no one's rights would be
violated. The specimen simply would not be available for analysis.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned the breach of confidentiality violation.
MR. GUANELI stated under Title 11, misuse of confidential
information is a class A misdemeanor.
Number 134
SENATOR ADAMS stated the fiscal note reflects the cost of sample
collection only. There is no cost included for testing or anything
else. He asked what the registration system will cost once this
system is used in prosecuting crimes.
MR. GUANELI responded testing is becoming less expensive due to new
technology. The Crime Lab is only collecting samples at this time
because the law enforcement community as a whole has not really
focussed on a specific type of testing as the standard one to be
used nationally. Processing the samples at a later date will
enable the Crime Lab to use newer technology at a lower cost.
Number 158
SENATOR ADAMS noted the cost of any type of testing is not included
in the fiscal note. He asked if the testing would only be done on
samples from sex offenders. MR. VITALE replied the sponsor felt it
would be inappropriate to attach a fiscal note to the bill to
reflect something the Crime Lab is not required to do. The Crime
Lab does not feel prepared to type samples at this time because the
rapid changes in technology. The Crime Lab is currently estimating
$50 to $75 for each sample typing.
SENATOR ADAMS commented new state programs cost money and he
expressed concern that two fiscal notes were not included. MR.
VITALE explained the Crime Lab is not required to start typing the
samples, and when they are prepared to begin testing, they will
have to request funds from the legislature and they will know the
costs.
Number 187
JAY MILLER, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), testified via
teleconference from Washington, D.C. He discussed the FBI CODIS
program, which is a DNA index system that attempts to standardize
software that can be made available to state and local crime
laboratories who are trying to implement their statewide databases.
To date, 32 states have passed DNA database legislation. All of
those states are confronted with the problem of storing DNA typing
results in a standard format, and exchanging information. The FBI
provides IBM PC software to crime laboratories that want to use the
standard procedures. If the crime laboratories' data meets quality
assurance standards, it is used in a FBI clearinghouse which
exchanges records among states. The two principle purposes of the
DNA database are: to link serial sex offenses where the offenders
are unknown; and to match evidence from a sexual assault against a
previous offender's file for identification. CODIS provides
investigative leads for law enforcement agencies who are trying to
link serial sex offenses to each other through genetic material, or
to identify suspects sooner than would otherwise be possible
through conventional police investigative methods. He stated HB 27
is consistent with some of the better laws passed in other states
in recent years.
Number 270
LAUREE HUGONIN, representing the Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), testified in support of HB 27
for the following reasons. Keeping a DNA database will help law
enforcement agencies quickly apprehend sex offenders; and, DNA is
proving to be a very adequate identifier which will help in the
prosecution of sex offenders. She commented it is important to
begin collecting samples now as it will broaden the pool of
available samples. Waiting to collect samples until better
technology is developed would result in the loss of samples from
many offenders.
JAYNE ANDREEN, Director of the Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault, testified in support of HB 27. She stated that
sexual assault continues to be one of the most under-reported
crimes in both the United States and Alaska. In Alaska, the
reporting rate is twice what the national rate is, yet a very small
percentage of cases reported result in a conviction. In 1992, 570
rapes were reported. Most victims were examined, but the forensic
evidence collected is not usable unless there are samples available
to compare the evidence to. The Council believes a DNA databank
will provide law enforcement agencies and the Crime Lab the ability
to compare evidence collected with alleged offenders and suspects
and it will increase the ability to obtain convictions. She noted
once that process is used, more victims are likely to report sexual
assault cases, because physical evidence will exist to obtain a
conviction.
Number 319
SENATOR ADAMS made a motion to adopt the following amendment (#1).
On page 1, following line 7, insert a new bill section to read:
"Section 1. AS 22.20 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
ARTICLE 4. JUDICIAL COUNCIL.
Sec. 22.20.200. DNA EVIDENCE INFORMATION. The judicial
council shall periodically review and distribute
information relevant to the technical, legal, and
scientific use of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profiles in
criminal proceedings to
(1) judges and magistrates;
(2) the Department of Law;
(3) the Public Defender Agency;
(4) the office of public advocacy."
On page 1, line 8: delete "Section 1," insert "Sec.2" and renumber
the following bill sections accordingly. On page 4, line 1, delete
"sec.1" and insert "sec. 2."
SENATOR TAYLOR objected for the purpose of hearing feedback from
the Department of Law. MR. VITALE responded the same amendment was
opposed by the sponsor when it was previously offered, since the
amendment would be adding to the judicial council's
responsibilities which are already spelled out in law.
Number 334
SENATOR ADAMS commented that the amendment sends some direction to
the judicial council to review information, and it does no harm.
MR. VITALE stated the judicial council currently has that right.
DEAN GUANELI stated, from the standpoint of the Department of Law,
the issue is a policy call by the Legislature. He noted the
judicial council may not have expertise in scientific matters; they
research legal matters: court and sentencing procedures; and
sentencing trends. He suggested getting direct testimony from the
judicial council.
Number 350
SENATOR GREEN questioned the purpose of the amendment. SENATOR
ADAMS stated he feels the judicial council needs to review the
information on DNA testing periodically since in order to stay
knowledgeable about a quickly evolving field.
SENATOR ELLIS noted the amendment could be potentially beneficial
and can do no harm. He added the Legislature is unable to keep up
with this issue from year to year to keep up with changing trends.
SENATOR ADAMS suggested holding the bill in order to get comments
from the judicial council. SENATOR TAYLOR commented he is opposed
to adding extra burdens to the judicial council, but it may be wise
to have some agency provide a form of objective distribution of
information. He thought judges and magistrates would be well
briefed on the subject as the science evolves, as well as the
Department of Law and the Public Defender Agency. He requested
Senator Adams to withdraw the amendment until Representative
Parnell could speak to the issue. SENATOR ADAMS agreed and
withdrew the amendment.
SENATOR ADAMS discussed a second amendment to delete "and of minors
16 years of age or older who are adjudicated a delinquent for an
act that would be a felony crime against a person if committee by
an adult." He questioned the rationale for including this large
group of teenagers.
DEAN GUANELI explained the rationale was to create as large a
database as possible of those offenders who might be starting off
at an early age at becoming repeat sexual offenders. He added
Senator Adams is correct about the juvenile waiver bill passed last
year for offenders 16 and 17 years old who commit rapes. The bill
would require sample collections be taken from juveniles who have
committed lesser levels of sexual offense or when the prosecutor
has decided the juvenile system would be effective.
Number 400
SENATOR ADAMS asked for the Department of Law's position. MR.
GUANELI replied the Administration has not taken a position on this
piece of legislation. MR. VITALE stated the sponsor is opposed to
the amendment because of the nature of the crime and because of the
high recidivism rate among juveniles.
SENATOR MILLER objected to the second amendment. A roll call vote
was taken with the following result: Senators Taylor, Green and
Miller voted "nay," and Senators Adams and Ellis voted "yea."
The committee took up amendment number 1. MR. VITALE relayed the
following comments on the amendment prepared by Representative
Parnell, who was unable to be in attendance. The amendment would
add another layer to the government, and should not be added just
because it would do no harm. Additionally, the amendment does not
specify that any other type of judicial review will happen on other
types of evidence, therefore the amendment would elevate DNA
evidence to a higher level of importance than other evidence used
in court cases.
SENATOR ADAMS moved amendment number 1. SENATOR TAYLOR objected
for the purpose of discussion. SENATOR MILLER commented he
opposed the amendment when it was presented to the House Finance
Committee because it adds a task to the judicial council but does
not do anything meaningful. He felt the Department of Public
Safety and the Division of Legislative Budget and Audit should be
the agencies monitoring the program. He added he did not have a
strong objection to the amendment, but did not feel it adds
anything to the bill.
SENATOR ADAMS asked if anyone discussed the amendment with the
judicial council. SENATOR MILLER answered the judicial council did
not object to the amendment; they are mandated to provide a broad
range of tasks so this is within the scope of their authority. It
is something Bill Cotten said he was willing to do but he did not
say what it might cost. SENATOR ADAMS stated there was no fiscal
note reflecting the cost of testing the samples.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if further objection was maintained to the
amendment. There being no further objection, amendment number 1
was adopted.
SENATOR GREEN moved CSHB 27 am out of committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|