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.