CSHB 49(JUD)-EXPAND DNA DATABASE    CHAIR SEEKINS announced CSHB 49(JUD) to be up for consideration. REPRESENTATIVE TOM ANDERSON, sponsor of HB 49, said that collection and examination of DNA is the next step in technological advancement in the art and science of criminal investigations. Forensic DNA typing has made a broad and positive impact on the criminal justice system in terms of solving crimes and innocent people have been freed both before trial and after incarceration due to this. HB 49 will make police investigation more efficient and more accurate helping both law enforcement and crime victims and will expand the Alaska state database of DNA samples to include all persons with a felony conviction under Alaska law and juveniles adjudicated as a delinquent for these same offenses. There are provisions for volunteer and anonymous donations. Persons who register as sex offenders are also required to submit DNA samples into the database. It will require offenders and minors currently incarcerated or on state supervised parole for felony convictions or certain sexual misdemeanor offenses to provide a sample to the Department of Public Safety. The collection of DNA will be in line with the collection of fingerprints, which are currently collected at an arrest or, in some cases, during the process of applying for a job. SENATOR OGAN asked if the law could collect a sample from an unknown person. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON replied that wasn't the intent and the Department of Law could clarify that. SENATOR FRENCH said it should be made clear that they are talking about a plane wreck or an arson case when a house burns down and you're not sure who's in or who's out. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the bill needs a findings section. SENATOR ANDERSON replied that he didn't think that was in the original, but was added in later. SENATOR ELLIS said he has concerns about privacy issues because DNA is an even more powerful identifier than fingerprinting. It also identifies everybody else in the bloodline of that individual. Some time in the future they might find themselves passing laws to keep health insurance companies from not excluding all people with a genetic predisposition for certain diseases. Significant safeguards should be in place for it to be used for good and not for other purposes. Page 3, line 27, says "law enforcement purposes including criminal investigation prosecutions" and he thought it would be okay to just read "criminal investigations and prosecutions". "Law enforcement purposes" was a very subjective phrase and open to just anything. Another concern he has is with keeping the sample of genetic material after everything has been processed because someday we will regret not being more careful about this subject. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON responded that he understands Senator Ellis's concern and that page 2, section 4, has a new section about unlawful use of DNA samples, which addresses those concerns. Page 2, line 25, says that unlawful use of DNA samples is a Class C felony. TAPE 03-34, SIDE B  2:48 p.m.  SENATOR FRENCH said he thinks they should hear from the crime lab folks before they decide anything. Everyone agreed that they would eventually have to protect the use of DNA for insurance and other purposes. MR. CHRIS BEHEIM, Director, Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory, prepared a handout to explain the history of biological testing at the state crime lab. In 1987, they first started doing blood type testing and in 1992, they added DQ Alpha, the first DNA testing marker. They used it first on a homicide in Fairbanks and were able to eliminate the first suspect. They found the killer by testing blood that was found in his watchband. In 1996, they added another DNA marker, known as the polymarker technique, which eliminated about 99.9 percent of the population. The big breakthrough came in 1999, when STR (short tandem repeat) typing became available, which involves analysis of 13 different markers on the DNA molecule. In 1997, all labs began using this one technique so they could create databases and exchange information. Prior to that time, there wasn't a consistent technology. The mechanism that allows them to store and compare DNA profiles is known as CODIS (combined DNA index system), which is a software package the FBI provides to laboratories at no cost. CODIS has two indexes - the Convicted Offender Index and the Forensic Index, which contains crime scene evidence DNA profiles. There is no personally identifying information in the database that is uploaded into CODIS. If there is a hit on the database, they have to go to another database to find out where the sample came from. The primary purpose of CODIS is to identify suspects and it is done by searching and comparing the convicted offender DNA database against the forensic database. Law enforcement is notified if a match occurs and they determine the significance of it. SENATOR OGAN asked why they have to retain the DNA material. MR. BEHEIM explained that it is primarily for quality assurance. When they achieve a match in the database, they go back and retrieve the original sample and retype it to make sure there hasn't been any sample switching. Contract labs are used, but they deal with thousands and thousands of samples. When law enforcement is notified, they want an additional sample to use in any legal proceedings. SENATOR FRENCH said he could see his concern about future misuse of the sample and keeping a sample here, at least, guarantees that the evidence being used is from the right person. MR. BEHEIM said currently they have about 3,200 convicted offender profiles in the database and DNA profiles from 165 unsolved crimes (17 homicides, 91 sexual assaults, 48 burglaries and 9 miscellaneous). The database has helped enormously. Since April 30, they have had 30 hits in the database; 15 hits have matched unsolved crimes to specific convicted offenders; 15 of them have linked cases together showing the same perpetrator is involved. Currently, Alaska's DNA database law is very weak; only Connecticut's is weaker. When Oregon expanded their DNA database to collect from all felons, their hits went up 400 percent. If we can have a similar success rate, many crimes will be cleared up. We are hampered now because our law is not retroactive, but 40 other states do have retroactive DNA laws. Under Alaska law, you can't compare a sample for a crime unless it was committed after 1996. CHAIR SEEKINS held CSHB 49(JUD) for further work.