Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/06/2001 01:14 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 143 - DNA DATABASE [Contains testimony relating to SB 99.] Number 0239 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced the first order of business, HOUSE BILL NO. 143, "An Act relating to the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification registration system." [In packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS), version 22-LS0234\F, Luckhaupt, 3/14/01.] Number 0250 REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that HB 143 is similar to legislation from the previous session; however, the previous bill didn't include burglary in the list of offenses for which samples would be collected. Currently under statute the state can collect DNA samples from those convicted of crimes against a person: assault, rape, kidnapping, murder, child sexual abuse, robbery, stalking, indecent exposure, extortion, coercion, and first- degree arson. What HB 143 does is add burglary to the list. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI told members they probably would hear arguments regarding the numbers; however, statistics she has seen prove that 50 percent of those who commit burglary - a so- called crime of convenience - later commit violent crimes. If the state can get [DNA] identification from those committing burglary, the belief is that it will help to identify, solve, or prevent certain violent crimes. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI informed members that George Taft, director of the state crime lab, was online to testify that day. She encouraged members to tour the lab facilities to see how they operate and input the data. She told members that Deputy Commissioner Smith from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) would address the process as well. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted the arrival of Representative Kookesh. Referring to a chart in committee packets that shows the DNA database laws from all 50 states in relationship to various felonies, he observed that burglary is the only such offense not included for Alaska currently. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI affirmed that, adding that other charts, not included in packets, show how various states are dealing with the expansion to their DNA databases. She reported that all states require DNA samples for sex offenses; 35 states, including Alaska, require samples for murder and for assault and battery; and 24 require samples for burglary. The inclusion of burglary in the list of violent crimes is something that more and more states are looking at. CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that the chart in packets says 18 states [include burglary, rather than the 24 mentioned]. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI explained that the chart is from June 2000; it is an older listing. CHAIR ROKEBERG commented that it clearly shows a trend of other states' adopting the standard being requested [in HB 143]. Number 0628 GEORGE TAFT, Director, Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference. He informed members that the laboratory is prepared to handle the workload, should HB 143 pass. He pointed out that the figure of 24 states [with burglary on the inclusion list] has recently increased to 26 states. Mr. Taft reported that the laboratory is performing the latest DNA testing available, called "STR" for "short tandem repeat," a highly specific and accurate process that can identify individuals with one-in-a-billion [accuracy]. Number 0738 MARK MEW, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police Department (APD), Municipality of Anchorage, testified via teleconference, noting that with him was Officer John McKinnon, the "point man" on the project. He informed members that the APD is "very enthusiastic" about HB 143; the APD was also enthusiastic about the previous legislation, he said, and wanted burglary [included] at that time, as well. DEPUTY CHIEF MEW explained that his department has an interest in generating as large a database of criminals as possible, and sees a direct relationship between burglary and other crimes. He pointed out that different statistics exist from using different methodologies, but all correlate burglary with other crimes; in particular, he said, he was thinking of sexual assaults. The APD believes that including burglars in the DNA database will assist the department to stop serial criminals early in their careers, he told members, thereby saving the taxpayers money and shortening investigation time. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what the APD's calculated percentage is for burglars who go on to commit other crimes. DEPUTY CHIEF MEW replied that he is aware of three different numbers from three [sources]. First, he has been told that in Florida the figure is somewhere around 25 percent. Second, he is aware of an FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] study that used a different methodology, interviewing serial rapists, and came up with a figure closer to 50 percent for people who had committed property crimes - specifically, burglary - beforehand. DEPUTY CHIEF MEW said third, "we" made some effort to calculate the same statistics in Alaska, and the number was "quite a bit lower than that," presumably because juvenile records are kept separately from adult records, and thus juvenile burglary convictions were not being picked up as they related to violent crimes committed by the same juveniles after they became adults; [the APD] is working now with the [Division of] Juvenile Justice to backtrack regarding some of those names. Right now, he noted, that statistic is lower than 50 percent, which he suggested Deputy Commissioner Smith could speak to. He added that he thinks 25 percent is probably [a reasonable estimate] in terms of rapists who have prior burglary convictions. Number 0963 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned her own accounting background, saying she was having difficulty establishing that percentage if one is figuring out how many [perpetrators of violent crimes] started as burglars, as opposed to figuring out how many violent criminals have done burglaries. She suggested that the two answers wouldn't necessarily be the same. DEPUTY CHIEF MEW replied that in order to make it work, the individuals, not the number of crimes, must be counted. There are many burglaries for which the perpetrator is unknown. Therefore, the criminal histories of the people who have been convicted of the violent crimes must be tracked backward through time to see how many had convictions for burglaries. He emphasized that these statistics are for convictions, rather than for a charge of burglary that is pled down to vandalism, for example. DEPUTY CHIEF MEW explained that part of the difficulty in comparing one state's statistics to another's is because the methodology and the statutory definitions of the crimes may differ, widely affecting the results of a study. "We're trying to come up with an apples-to-apples comparison right now," he added, "but our data isn't coming in as fast as you guys are holding hearings, so I can't nail down a number for you; I apologize for that." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she can understand the difficulty in analyzing it because one can only analyze backward in time, whereas the legislation projects forward in time, using that assumption. Number 1109 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that his own question was similar to that of Representative James. He referred to a handout provided by Representative Murkowski regarding a study done in Virginia which showed that 40 percent of the men who were ultimately arrested for rape began their criminal careers with property crimes such as burglar and petty theft. He asked how this would "track" in Alaska. DEPUTY CHIEF MEW noted that the FBI [study] said 50 percent had done property crimes including those such as burglary; he cautioned that "property crimes" includes more than just burglary. He concluded, "I think that we're the same as all the other states. I'm just unable right now to prove it to you with the hard [numbers]." CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that one benefit of having [DNA] evidence available is that it can help a potential defendant who is innocent of the crime, just as it can convict [someone who is guilty]. DEPUTY CHIEF MEW concurred, pointing out that some people have been released from prison after serving lengthy sentences because [of being exonerated] by DNA technology. He called it an objective test. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether the APD has found it helps in investigations. DEPUTY CHIEF MEW replied that [the APD] uses DNA "all the time"; it is particularly valuable in sexual assault cases. He explained that [DNA] is good physical evidence that can "break" an alibi or help get a confession. In sexual assault, it used to be a matter of proving whether or not sex occurred to begin with; now, however, it is usually a matter of just proving whether it was "successful" because the first part of the argument is pretty much settled by the DNA. It also helps in homicides and even in burglary cases when a burglar gets cut by glass and leaves blood behind [at the scene]. Deputy Chief Mew commented that there may be serial burglars who haven't graduated to other crimes in the database today, "and two years from now they'll leave blood behind at the scene, and we may close up even our own burglary cases [using this] technology." Number 1260 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL returned to Deputy Chief Mew's caution that [different crimes] may have different standards and definitions in other states' statutes. Representative Coghill remarked that there is a "privacy wall" that must be protected in order to avoid misusing this information. He said right now, he doesn't have any fear that the state itself or the current generation will misuse it; he expressed concern, however, that future generations will have a lot of information available. He asked whether, right now, there could be people who are inadvertently "caught up" because of the definition of burglary [in HB 143] - people who will have DNA samples collected but who really shouldn't be in that [database]. DEPUTY CHIEF MEW answered: Our definition of burglary here, I think, is fairly consistent with traditional burglary definitions: ... you have to enter or remain illegally with the intent to commit a crime. It's much higher than just vandalizing something or just stealing something. It's not stealing hubcaps off a car. It's not shoplifting out of a store that's open to the public. It's a fairly high level of crime .... And if you're charged with burglary, but ... to avoid the necessities of trial the [district attorney] allows you to plead guilty to something lesser such as trespass or theft or vandalism, we're not going to be collecting a sample under this law. You have to have the conviction for burglary, not the charge. Unless the legislature wants to change that down the road, that's what we're asking for, and that's what we'll be held to - and it's a fairly high standard. DEPUTY CHIEF MEW, in further response to Representative Coghill, pointed out that if the standard were a charge of burglary, rather than a conviction, the bill would be "catching" many people. Requiring a conviction not only narrows the number of people, but also raises the burden of proof. Number 1392 JOHN McKINNON, Officer, Anchorage Police Department, Municipality of Anchorage, testified via teleconference. He noted that "law enforcement is tasked with balancing many public issues" including balancing public safety with "liberty for all." He suggested that some opponents of this bill, by contrast, may have the task of [protecting] only one area, such as liberty. He said HB 143 meets both of these challenges: it enhances the ability of law enforcement to promote and preserve public safety while enhancing and furthering leads in criminal investigation. In addition, HB 143 will [protect] people from false convictions when they are innocent of a crime. OFFICER McKINNON reported that according to at least one study, conducted by the National Institute of Justice, violent crimes such as sexual assault are the most expensive for society; considering all the factors of medical and mental care, loss of productivity, and decreased quality of life, [the study] estimated the average cost of one crime to be nearly $87,000. Officer McKinnon told members that with the enactment of HB 143, having a suspect's DNA in the registry possibly could lessen the damage to individual citizens and reduce the cost to government. Number 1491 JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU), testified via teleconference, noting that the AkCLU is a statewide organization whose mission is to defend and protect the guarantees of individual liberty found in the Bill of Rights and in Alaska's constitution. She said [the AkCLU] hears almost daily from people across the state who have various concerns about civil liberties; by far, the biggest categories of cases brought to her attention in her four years as director have been from people concerned about the government's demand for more and more personal information, whether that information regards genetics, social security [numbers], or personal backgrounds. She informed members that she would, therefore, focus on personal privacy in her testimony. MS. RUDINGER said the AkCLU doesn't doubt that the sponsors of both SB 99 and HB 143 have good intentions, nor does the AkCLU question DNA's accuracy for identification or its value to exonerate the innocent; in fact, [the American Civil Liberties Union] is advocating, in states nationwide and at the federal level, that whenever someone is convicted of a crime that carries the death penalty, DNA - if it existed at the crime scene - should be allowed for testing before the [convicted] person is executed. Therefore, the AkCLU wouldn't oppose voluntary collection of DNA. In fact, if someone is innocent, that person's lawyer should ask for a DNA test. Number 1585 MS. RUDINGER pointed out that HB 143, by contrast, establishes mandatory collection of DNA. She stressed the importance of asking whether [this mandatory collection] is justified in Alaska. She said: We're not talking about taking DNA from burglars in Florida or Virginia. We're talking about taking DNA from people in Alaska, and we started out with sex offenders, as did most or all states. With sex offenders, it's different, because sex offenders (a) typically leave DNA at the crime scene, and (b) tend to be recidivists; I think it's an 80 percent or a little more than 80 percent recidivist rate - repeat offenders. So, then, it makes sense that if you take the DNA for someone convicted of [a] sex offense, ... first of all, you'll be able to identify them and convict them, and down the road, if they're 80 percent likely to be a repeat offender, ... law enforcement is more likely to nab them. ... That seems to be justified. And we were told, ... by the federal government when they started this and by the states, ... "Well, ... here's the justification with sex offenses." And whether we completely agreed or not, we bought in to the argument that it was justified. Then the line moves. And the line keeps moving. And so we have seen DNA collection moving from sex offenses to all violent crimes, and in Alaska it is currently very broad: it's all personal crimes. And in other states it's gone into property crimes like burglary. And then you start getting into states who are taking it from anyone who's arrested for a crime - not convicted. And finally, there have been proposals by Rudy Giuliani [mayor of New York City] - and Janet Reno [former U.S. Attorney General] thought this might have some credibility - of taking DNA from newborns. The line keeps moving. And every time that you consider moving that line, we respectfully urge the committee to ask yourselves whether it's justified. Number 1672 MS. RUDINGER continued: In Alaska, it's not 40 percent or 25 or 50 percent. ... The only data we have to go on says that only 6 percent of burglars - of the people from whom you are taking DNA - do go on to commit a violent crime later; ... that means 94 percent do not. This isn't like a fingerprint. I think we also have to look at what we are seizing from a human being. DNA, unlike fingerprinting, reveals information beyond identification. It gives the government control over a great deal of personal, private information, not only about the person you get the DNA from - the sample source - but from everyone related to that person by blood, [including] information about some 4,000 genetic conditions and diseases, ethnicity, family relationships, family history. This is a kind of information that belongs to the person, not the government, and you've got to really question whether it's justified. And beyond that, we're constantly finding new things that we can learn from DNA. Geneticists are already thinking that we might be able to detect sexual orientation, tendency for substance abuse, so-called criminal tendencies under the theory of the "aggression gene." ... It may sound Orwellian, but it's true, and it's constantly developing. MS. RUDINGER noted that confusion arises because two different kinds of data are taken from the DNA. The first, which looks like a barcode, is what is entered into the national database, CODIS [Combined DNA Index System]. MS. RUDINGER explained that the 13 specific genetic markers taken from the DNA chain, which are put into CODIS, are like a genetic fingerprint; with today's technology, the only information one can get from that "barcode" in the database is identification and maybe gender. However, the AkCLU and Alaskans are largely concerned about the other set of data - the drop of blood or saliva itself - because nothing in federal or Alaskan law requires that the sample be destroyed. MS. RUDINGER noted that she had provided additional written testimony. She concluded by requesting that the sponsor consider amending HB 143 so that once testing is completed and the data is entered into the database - which is 99.9 percent accurate - then the drop of blood, drop of saliva, hair, or tissue would be gotten rid of. It is the information in those samples that potentially invades a person's privacy, she explained. Number 1868 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, observing that the percentages offered by Ms. Rudinger were considerably different from those mentioned in earlier testimony, asked Ms. Rudinger where she obtained her information. MS. RUDINGER replied that she had received her information from Senator Randy Phillips, who had said he'd obtained the information from [Deputy Commissioner] Smith; she suggested perhaps Mr. Smith could address that. Ms. Rudinger added that it is the best information that she has, and the only data that [the AkCLU] has right now to go on. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she understands the position on liberties, but when she herself thinks about catching burglars, it protects her own liberty to be able to live safely in her home and on the streets. She suggested that is one of the most important aspects of liberty. MS. RUDINGER concurred, but said the problem is that a person convicted of burglary is already going to do [jail] time. Now DNA will be taken. The argument is that taking DNA is supposed to help law enforcement track this person in the future, once the person is out of prison and back in society, under the theory that the person will commit another crime. However, if in Alaska it is known that 94 percent will not commit a future crime, she said it does little to give citizens peace of mind. She said it is simply part of a national movement, pushed by the FBI, to build a national database, that contains as many samples and [genetic] markers as possible. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that Ms. Rudinger's second page of written testimony says DNA also can prove the innocence of a suspect, thereby preventing terribly miscarriages of justice, and DNA can even be used to correct wrongful convictions based on erroneous identification. "I take your point," he remarked. Number 2010 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety (DPS), came forward to testify, noting that he had been before the [House Judiciary Standing] Committee regarding the previous legislation. He said he would address questions that had arisen that day. MR. SMITH affirmed that the 6 percent that he had told Senator Phillips is an accurate number. Of the roughly 3,000 people from whom [DPS] has taken mandatory DNA samples since January 1, 1996, 6 percent had a previous burglary conviction. That information should be considered, but isn't scientific. "It does not mean, as far as I'm concerned, that 94 percent didn't," he stated. Mr. Smith explained: These are convicted individuals. We've got a lot of unsolved burglaries out there; probably about 85 percent - in my experience, in my life in investigations - of burglaries never get solved. That being so, these are numbers that you probably should consider: 44 percent in Virginia is the number that I was told; 52 percent in Florida. Consider these, but I don't know that we ought to live or die on what the percentage is. MR. SMITH pointed out that in Alaska, a substantial number of burglaries are committed by people under the age of 18, who do not end up, for the most part, with a criminal history against which the [DPS] can check the database; he suggested the officers from the APD could affirm that. He added, "We're trying to figure out a way to do that now, to come up with a better number, but [are] simply unable to do it right at the moment." MR. SMITH reported that there was a case in the last couple of years in which, based on what [law enforcement] knew, probable cause would have brought the person in for a particularly bad crime in Anchorage. Based on the DNA sampling that [DPS] was able to do, however, the person was not arrested. Mr. Smith said, "That's the kind of thing I want to do. I do not want to submit somebody to arrest. ... If I can avoid that by having DNA that heads us off, and heads us in the right direction, that's what I want to do. And as far as I'm concerned, that is guarding the freedom of the public." MR. SMITH stated that he supports the bill, which he believes to be an important step forward. He emphasized that it is for convicted burglars. He noted that there was an APRN [Alaska Public Radio Network] program a few weeks ago from which he had obtained the tape and transcript. A person from Virginia had said, "If you don't want to do this, then you've probably given someone one free sexual assault." Mr. Smith said that is certainly a possibility. He suggested that many burglaries may be based on a tip on how to get into a person's house, for reasons that have little to do with taking money or guns. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Smith whether he thinks this will have any deterrent effect on young people. MR. SMITH answered that he would like to think so, but he wasn't sure that such a thought process would enter into it. He suggested that people may be more careful regarding what they might leave at the crime scene. CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated that was his own point: it could be a double-edged sword. Number 2200 ROBERT BUTTCANE, Legislative & Administrative Liaison, Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), came forward to testify in support of HB 143. He told members that there are approximately 600 burglary referrals to the juvenile system a year; of that number, approximately 200- 300 are "adjudicated delinquent on burglary." He explained: We don't adjudicate every child a burglar, because of various extenuating circumstances. ... A young person in a village may go into someone's home to get their jug of whiskey from underneath the sink; technically, that meets the qualifications or criteria for a burglary. But as you piece all of this together, what it really is more akin to, when you've got a 14- or 15-year old, is a criminal trespass. So we're much more likely, in those kinds of cases, to adjudicate the young person of a lesser serious offense. That would be contrasted to the couple of teenagers who skip school one day and sit in their car at the end of the cul-de-sac and watch people go off to work, go up to the door, ring the doorbell, get no response, and then bust the door in and then ransack the house and remove valuables and so on. That's a burglary in the first degree, and those are the type of things that we try to adjudicate, holding kids to a standard of conduct and expectation. So when we adjudicate someone for a burglary in the first degree, it isn't just a simple thing. ... We're talking about young people who have ... committed the most serious of property offenses. It is a pretty bold and daring move to invade someone's residence, someone's castle, if you will. It is not an uncommon factor for kids to go into homes at night while the home is occupied. ... When I've talked to kids that have done that sort of thing, they get some sort of thrill out of doing this sort of thing with someone sitting there in bed. That's scary, to me. We're not talking about people who are innocent little jaywalkers. We're talking about people who have lost any of the reasonable sense about what is an appropriate social boundary. So when we adjudicate a young person of a burglary, we are talking about finding someone having committed a real serious offense against the sanctity and the dignity of a person, their property, and the safety of the community. So we're talking about a class of offender that isn't like the rest of us. Taking a DNA sample from them is giving us an opportunity to have something on file that we can use later in terms of our public safety efforts and our ability to solve crimes and make sure that we hold offenders accountable. Number 2317 I was concerned about the use of information. A few years ago, the legislature compelled us to share delinquency information with schools. And I was initially resistant to that because I was afraid that teachers and schools would misuse information about a kid's theft behaviors or assault behaviors - criminal behaviors. But what I have found as we have shared information with schools is that they have used it appropriately. They hold kids accountable. And I've actually found that that was one of the best things that we did, in terms of opening up some of the delinquency system to let other people know what we're doing with these kids so that another set of eyes could hold those kids accountable to a standard of conduct that we all agree to. If the people who have this information are misusing it, that's where we need to intervene so that if I, as a juvenile probation officer, am not respecting the confidentiality rights of a delinquent, then you hold me accountable for misuse of that information, but you don't stop me from collecting that information or sharing that information with people who can make better decisions and take more appropriate action because they have [the information]. That would be the same thing with people in our crime lab. If, for some reason, their procedures are such that they allow people to access information that they shouldn't have, then hold them accountable for violating their protocols and violating those rights. That would be an answer, rather than to deprive the justice system of the use of a valuable tool that helps solve crimes and keep the communities safe. Number 2379 MR. BUTTCANE concluded: If we were to enact this bill, we would anticipate that there would be approximately 200 or so more DNA samples that we would submit to the state crime lab for adjudicated delinquents who have committed the crime of burglary. We have a system in place that would allow us to do that without any programmatic or fiscal impact on our system. The sampling is a very simple mouth-swab test. It's taken by our field probation officers as well as our youth facility staff. It's sealed and then sent off to the crime lab, where it's classified, recorded, and so on. It's a simple and effective process. And, again, the department supports this committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she believes there could be some deterrent, especially for young folks, although some people become calloused very early. She asked Mr. Buttcane, if he were in charge of a juvenile who had given a DNA sample, whether the process would include making it clear to the young person what kind of evidence was being left behind and what the future could hold if that person got into some other "bad trouble." MR. BUTTCANE answered: Yes. We do that now, with juvenile disclosure. ... Not all cases are automatically subject to mandatory public disclosure. But in our discussions of those offenses that are not subject to mandatory disclosure, we talk about, "Your next offense will trigger a series of events which could subject you to being published in the newspaper." For kids who are on kind of that moral boundary, that does help them stay within the boundaries sometimes, explaining that to a young person who has committed a burglary, to say, "You know, you've got a chance: you can choose to walk this way or that way, but if you walk this way, everything will be fine and taking your DNA really won't matter down the road, but it is on file, so that if you walk the other way, it will make it easier for us to find you and hold you accountable." So communicating that message to them, I think, has some value. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned that she had cared for foster children in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. One girl had come from the Hillcrest School for girls, she noted, which had provided Representative James with a full file on the student. TAPE 01-57, SIDE B Number 2472 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL turned to the issue of security and noted that "there are three things: crime labs and the types of information that you might get from DNA, the security, and what would be the liability from misuse." He requested that Mr. Smith speak to that. MR. SMITH pointed out that the samples were initially blood samples stored in secure, cold/frozen storage. Only those within the DNA program have access to those samples. The samples are brought in and stored, and a barcode is established. However, the DNA sample remains, "which presumably could ultimately do all the things that some folks have indicated," he said. Currently, doing anything other than what the law says is a misdemeanor. Mr. Smith said he was not aware of any problems nationally or locally within the state. However, he emphasized the importance of holding [the sample] secure and preventing anyone from accessing it except for the intended purposes. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent are fingerprinted. MR. BUTTCANE answered that the law allows juveniles to be fingerprinted in the same manner in which adults are fingerprinted. However, there is not the capacity to fingerprint every juvenile delinquent, although "we" do attempt to fingerprint those juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent through a formal court process as well as those booked in youth facilities for any offense. Therefore, he estimated that 30-40 percent of [Alaska's] youth are being fingerprinted. Mr. Buttcane agreed with Chair Rokeberg that there is no statutory or legal restriction. Number 2328 CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that there is a proposed CS labeled 22-LS0234\F, Luckhaupt, 3/14/01. He requested that Representative Murkowski review the changes encompassed in it. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI explained that a letter from the Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU) mentions the expansion that HB 143 allows, including allowing law enforcement to demand DNA samples related to a missing person "if law enforcement articulates even a remote possibility." She explained that a section of the original bill has been deleted in the proposed CS because it referred to the ability to identify missing persons. She related her understanding that Alaska doesn't have the capability to do it and thus it didn't make sense to include such language in the legislation. MR. SMITH noted the belief that there is a national effort to allow [DNA from] missing persons to be put into the database. Therefore, he thought Alaska needed legislation to do so. However, since HB 143 has been drafted, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is creating that and will voluntarily let people be put into the database. The FBI will maintain [a national database] and thus it is not necessary to do it in the DNA registry. Mr. Smith related his understanding that [this national registry] would be similar to "reverse paternity." In other words, a [parent] with a missing child could have a DNA sample taken and placed in the database. Then the DNA would be run against the remains and such that are otherwise unidentifiable. Number 2196 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to adopt CSHB 143, version 22- LS0234\F, Luckhaupt, 3/14/01, as the working document before the committee. There being no objection, Version F was before the committee. Number 2189 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report CSHB 143, version 22- LS0234\F, Luckhaupt, 3/14/01, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 143(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|