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.