1 / 39

DNA Legislative Update April 11, 2007 San Diego, California

DNA Legislative Update April 11, 2007 San Diego, California. Presented by: Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs Tacoma, WA (253) 620-6500 Washington, DC (202) 258-2301 Seattle, WA (206) 676-7500. Tim Schellberg tims@gth-gov.com. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Government Affairs.

marius
Télécharger la présentation

DNA Legislative Update April 11, 2007 San Diego, California

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DNA Legislative Update April 11, 2007San Diego, California Presented by: Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs Tacoma, WA (253) 620-6500 Washington, DC (202) 258-2301 Seattle, WA (206) 676-7500 Tim Schellberg tims@gth-gov.com

  2. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Government Affairs Tacoma, Washington Washington, DC Seattle, Washington

  3. THE DNA PROGRAM Continuum Five elements influenced by lawmakers

  4. Named suspect-to-crime scene evidence only, no database • Necessary first step • Small amounts of casework testing

  5. Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database Offender Database Legislation The essential element: No database legislation means no significant casework testing

  6. Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database Offender Database Legislation Government Funding • Funding must be secured at all levels (Federal, State and Local)

  7. Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database Offender Database Legislation Government Funding Unsolved Casework Demand • Achieving UK level of testing is a 6 to 15 year process after the database legislation passes • What will increase unsolved casework demand? • Law Enforcement Education • Property crime programs • Citizen education • AB has not focused on promoting unsolved casework demand

  8. Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database Offender Database Legislation Unsolved Casework Demand Government Funding Urgency (turnaround time) • Programs to promote turnaround time include PR, property crime and stranger rape programs.

  9. Forensic DNA Program Continuum Statistics

  10. All Felons LegislationPer 5 Million in State Population – Assuming full implementation of Continuum and US Crime Statistics Offender Database Samples Casework Samples • On the eighth year after the passage of the legislation, an estimated 7,500 annual casework samples will be tested.

  11. All Suspects LegislationPer 5 Million in State Population – Assuming full implementation of Continuum and US Crime Statistics Offender Database Samples Casework Samples • On the eighth year after the passage of the legislation, an estimated 16,000 annual casework samples will be tested

  12. Casework Analyzed Annual Growth Offender Samples Analyzed Annual Growth Difference Pre-Expansion Post-Expansion 950 CASES 12,000 OFFENDERS 1,963 CASES 87,000 OFFENDERS 1,013 CASES 75,000 OFFENDERS North Carolina DNA Program Growth

  13. Casework Analyzed Annual Growth Offender Sample Submissions Annual Growth *Casework data available only for no-suspect cases that are completed Difference Pre-Expansion Post-Expansion 551 CASES 8,642 OFFENDERS 1,069 CASES 84,584 OFFENDERS 518 CASES 75,942 OFFENDERS Washington DNA Program Growth

  14. Casework Submissions Annual Growth Offender Sample Submissions Annual Growth Difference Pre-Expansion Post-Expansion 1,650 CASES 12,000 OFFENDERS 6,008 CASES 69,800 OFFENDERS 4,358 CASES 57,800 OFFENDERS Oregon DNA Program Growth

  15. Database Legislation

  16. 1999 - 6 States required DNA from all convicted felons All Convicted Felons States 2006 - 44 States require DNA from all convicted felons

  17. 2000/2001 567,000 database samples over five years Georgia (2000) Colorado Florida Michigan Montana Oregon Texas Arizona Illinois Iowa Kansas Minnesota Utah Washington 2002 370,000 database samples over five years 2003 334,000 database samples over five years 2004 420,000 database samples over five years 2005 350,000 database samples over five years Alaska Arkansas Connecticut Louisiana Massachusetts Mississippi New Jersey North Carolina South Dakota North Dakota Hawaii Oklahoma Indiana Vermont Ohio Pennsylvania California Missouri Rhode Island South Carolina West Virginia Results of All Convicted Felons Effort Enacted Legislation 2000-2006 2006 200,000 database samples over five years New York

  18. Observations on the Legislate Push to All Felons (1999-2006) • A relatively easy policy sell in the legislatures • Little organized advocacy by victims and law enforcement. • Most state crime labs were hesitant • Credit goes to the federal Government, DNA Commission on the future of DNA Evidence and their “Groupies”, and local prosecutors. • Opponents, such as ACLU, and Defense Bar were quiet after 2001 • Pass it and the money will come was an essential strategy • Congressional backlog money was also essential

  19. Arrestee DNA Database Legislation 2006 through 2007 2006 – 11 states introduced arrestee legislation 2007 – 25 states have introduced arrestee legislation

  20. Arrestee DNA Database Legislation 2007 Status Enacted arrestee law in prior years (7) 2007 Arrestee legislation did not pass, but significant misdemeanor legislation pending (1) 2007 Legislation Pending (14) 2007 Legislation did not pass (10)

  21. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) DNA Fingerprint Act (S. 1606) Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (HR 3402. ) • Offender backlog grants may be used for samples collected under “applicable legal authority” • Opens NDIS upload to any DNA sample collected under “applicable legal authorities” (prior law required non-convicted offenders to be charged in an indictment) • US Attorney General may require DNA samples for anyone arrested or for any non-US resident detained under federal authority

  22. Observations on the Legislate Push to Arrestees(2006-?) • A much more complex policy issue. Will take longer than six years. • Cost issues are significant. Funding sources pursued and cost benefit analysis must be justified • Will take crime lab leadership and partnerships with private labs. • Victims are stepping up the effort. Law enforcement is still MIA. • Prevention data is essential (i.e. the Chicago Study) • Opponents are more activate • Strategy and compromise will be essential, such as: • Profile purge/sample destruction • Congressional action to make other funding subject to passing arrestee testing • Threats of Voters Initiatives • Permanent funding source

  23. States with Initiative Authority Indirect Initiative (Legislative consideration first) Maine Massachusetts Michigan Nevada Ohio Direct Initiative (Directly onto ballot) Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Idaho Missouri Montana Nebraska North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Utah Washington Wyoming

  24. New Mexico New leader for advancing arrestee legislation: Jayann Sepich

  25. Privacy Concerns Benefit to Society The Balancing Test of Arrestee DNA Legislation Overcoming the privacy concern. Can it happen?

  26. Illegal Immigration and Federal Arrestees Database • DHS and the FBI are on pace to implementing in 2008. • Regulations currently being drafted • $22 Million in the President’s Budget to Implement • Supporters watching potential legislative repeal attempts

  27. Congressional Funding

  28. Congressional Funding Results (in $ millions) for federal DNA funding:

  29. Senator Richard Shelby- Wants DNA funding to be reduced to less than $75 million per year FY07 DNA Funding – A forgetable Victory for DNA advocates How did the advocates get from $108.5 million (FY 2006) to $175 million (FY2007)?

  30. The Debbie Smith National Tour - Dallas was enough

  31. DNA Funding for FY08 ?

  32. President’s Budget 2008 Proposal • Noseparate DNA grant • Byrne Public Safety Program Grants funded at $350 million – DNA is one of 6 broad purpose areas: (1) reducing violent crime at the local levels through the Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative; (2) addressing the criminal justice issues surrounding substance abuse through drug courts, residential treatment for prison inmates, prescription drug monitoring programs, methamphetamine lab cleanup, and cannabis eradication efforts; (3) promoting and enhancing law enforcement information sharing efforts; (4) improving the capacity of State and local law enforcement and justice system personnel to make use of forensic evidence and reducing DNA evidence analysis backlogs; (5) addressing domestic trafficking in persons; (6) improving and expanding prisoner re-entry initiatives; and (7) improving services to victims of crime to facilitate their participation in the legal process. Grants to be awarded competitively • BJA is historical administrator for Byrne Grants

  33. Other Emerging Policy Issues

  34. CASEWORK TURNAROUND… THE MISSING PIECE? Washington State 30-Day Stranger Rape Kit ProjectComing soon to a city or state near you? • Guarantees a 30 day turnaround time for all no-suspect stranger rape kits (from date of receipt by lab) • Analyzed AND uploaded Liaison from Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to work daily with law enforcement throughout state for timely submission of rape kits. Need partnerships with private labs Raises the concern of current upload and technical review requirements http://www.komotv.com/news/6475187.html

  35. Family DatabaseSearches 60 Minutes – April 1 “ A Not So Perfect Match” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/60minutes/main2600721.shtml

  36. Local Databases • USA Today – March 26, 20007 “Local DNA labs avoid state and U.S. laws to nab criminals”http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-25-dna-databases_N.htm?csp=34 • Los Angeles Times – January 24,2007 “Orange County to create DNA database; Supervisors approve a plan to collect samples of people on probation. Critics say such programs should have state oversight”

  37. Questions ? www.dnaresource.com tims@gth-gov.com

More Related