Preventive DNA law sought
Sample would be taken after arrest, not conviction
By Judi Villa, Rocky Mountain News
Published August 31, 2008 at 10:45 p.m.
Photo by George Kochaniec Jr. / The Rocky
Medical assistant Jessica Avila takes a DNA sample from inmate James Lyman at the Denver County Jail intake center. Across the country, DNA taken from felons upon their conviction has been put into databases and increasingly used to solve crimes. Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey is among those pushing for a state law that would allow a DNA sample to be taken at arrest.
James Lyman opened his mouth for the sponge.
Lyman, a 47-year-old convicted felon, was required to provide a DNA sample last month when he was sent to prison.
Jessica Avila, a medical assistant for the Colorado Department of Corrections, swabbed both of Lyman's cheeks and underneath his tongue.
Lyman's DNA will become part of a statewide database containing the genetic fingerprints of convicted felons.
But Lyman's sample was taken more than two decades after his first felony arrest and 16 years after he first served a prison sentence.
Some law enforcement officials say that's too late.
They want Colorado to join about a dozen other states that take DNA samples when a person is arrested instead of waiting until he or she is convicted.
As DNA databases have gained widespread acclaim for identifying the guilty and clearing the innocent, there is an increasing push to use them for something more: preventing crime.
That means taking DNA samples even earlier - at arrest instead of at conviction. About a dozen states already do it, and Colorado could follow suit.
"DNA is very important in actually solving crimes, giving you leads in crimes and exonerating people," said Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey, who is pushing to take DNA from all people arrested for felonies. "This is the one way that DNA actually prevents crime."
Privacy right debated
It is an idea that is not without controversy.
"This is a definite violation of people's privacy," said Cathryn L. Hazouri, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado. "You're assuming they're guilty. If they're not guilty of this, they're going to be guilty of something else. That's what you're saying."
Colorado has been collecting DNA from sex offenders for more than 20 years. In 2007, the state expanded that to include all convicted felons.
The DNA then goes into a national database, where it can be matched to forensic samples taken at crime scenes.
Colorado has entered more than 88,379 offender DNA profiles in the national DNA database, said Lance Clem, spokesman for the Colorado Bureau of Investigations.
But Morrissey says it's now crucial to take full advantage of what DNA can do by collecting samples at arrest.
"This is a science that helps us catch violent predators that victimize women and children," he said.
By taking DNA earlier, "You catch them the first time that they go out and rape and murder people as opposed to the sixth time or the fourth time or even the second time," he said.
The city of Chicago examined the cases of eight people deemed to be repeat, violent offenders. The study concluded that if DNA had been taken at the first arrest, 53 murders and rapes could have been prevented.
In Denver, officials examined the records of four men. They found at least a dozen rapes and three murders could have been prevented. Denver's study was never published.
"The key is that when they're in the database, you get the match on the first violent offense and then you prevent the others," Morrissey said.
DNA as deterrent
A dozen states, as well as the federal government, have made it legal to take DNA at arrest. Another 22 states introduced legislation this year to mandate the taking of DNA at arrest, according to a state-by-state online listing at dnaresource.com.
A handful of states also attempted to include misdemeanor arrests and arrests for lesser crimes like burglary, disorderly conduct and breaking into a vehicle.
Only Maryland and South Dakota have been successful this year in enacting the new laws.
Morrissey hopes to have legislation introduced in the next session of the General Assembly. With nearly 62,000 adult felony arrests last year, Morrissey estimates the cost at about $5 million annually.
Under his plan, the DNA would be entered into the database immediately. If the person wasn't convicted, he or she could petition the court to have the sample expunged.
Lyman, who has a lengthy rap sheet and was most recently convicted of identity theft, said knowing the state now had his DNA might make him think twice in the future.
"DNA's on everything," Lyman said. "You can get it off anything."
But Hazouri, of the ACLU, said the plan is problematic partly because it gives the government information about ancestry and other personal details that could be misused.
Additionally, she said, taking DNA at arrest simply flies in the face of a "traditional American value."
"You have thrown the idea of innocent until proven guilty right out the window," Hazouri said. "What you end up with is a bunch of DNA samples that don't necessarily belong to people who have been convicted of violent crimes, and that's just not fair."
By the numbers
6 million samples from offenders are in the national DNA database.
225,400 crime scene samples are stored in the database.
71,500 matches have been produced, according to the FBI.
88,379 samples from offenders have been entered by Colorado.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
September 1, 2008
4:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Domino writes:
Denver continues to elect "Democrats" as our DA, but they throw all the cases against the police and now want to take DNA after arrests not convictions. Since our police like arresting people of color more than Anglos, the DNA will be unfairly tilted on people of color.
September 1, 2008
4:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
KneeDeep writes:
Why stop there? Why not have everyone be required to submit his or her DNA? Why?? Because this is an obvious assault on the presumption of innocence, a key to what makes us a free society. I have no problem with collecting samples from those CONVICTED of a felony. To so for those that have been arrested throws the idea of “innocent before being proven guilty” on the trash heap of history and is a very scary proposition.
September 1, 2008
5:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
ColoNative writes:
Forget attempting to defend your 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights. This is a direct affront and challenge to your 5th Amendment Rights. We now have the technology to do away with the Bill of Rights? Truly Big Brother is watching.
For all of you recent military people who have given DNA samples for identification purposes, your DNA samples are in a data bank just waiting for the opportunity to be used against you in a court of law.
September 1, 2008
6:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
stevea writes:
Would somebody please explain how taking DNA samples upon arrest differs philosophically from taking fingerprints upon arrest? That's been done since before J. Edgar tried on his first tutu and nobody whines about Big Brother.
Save your paranoia for something worthwhile, folks. If you want to worry about Big Brother, worry about the "Terrorist Liaison Officers". That be some Big Bro Biz for ya, friends.
September 1, 2008
6:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
I have a real prolem of with this.
People are not guilty of anything and they are taking your d.n.a.
So what is to protect you from someone rubbing this d.n.a. at a crime scene like on a soda can.
Wonder if people would be so willing to give up your d.n.a.
Because many insurance companies are using this as a way to reject people for life and health insurance.
Big Brother is trying to take over the country and know that and believe it.
The political parties have been leading a onslaught on your basic civil rights and no one is stopping them.
Remember this when you are forced to carry a g.p.s. device in a capsule under your skin.
September 1, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
mayday writes:
Stevea has a point with fingerprinting. Anyone who has been arrested, served in the military, or applied for a "sensitive" position has their fingerprints on file. I'd like to hear from the tinfoil hat crowd on how DNA collection is different from fingerprint collection; citations of cases where either was "placed"; or how exactly it's going to lead to "big brother".
September 1, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
RS writes:
Fingerprinting? "Innocent until proven guilty" was thrown under the bus with the introduction of "Affirmative Action" where it was determined at birth you were a white male and, therefore, guilty of crimes committed well before your birth and even in geographic regions where you never even had any ancestors! Organizations whining about "privacy" now lost all credibility when they chose to ignore these obvious crimes committed by government against individuals. They apparently learned nothing from the totalitarian governments who committed racial profiling by gassing and burning their victims. DNA sampling upon arrest may be offensive, but at least there is some probable cause beyond skin color and gender. Even the DA in this very article commits the often ignored sin of assuming "women and children" are only victims - leaving out the obvious assumption that men are only perps! No wonder men never call the cops - you only bring suspicion upon yourself by doing so, even if they must manufacture the evidence required to find a woman innocent and a man guilty. I'll believe things are improving when Mike Nifong is serving a life sentence for violating the civil rights of his three victims who formerly attended Duke University.
September 1, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolyCowBatman writes:
So, where do we draw the line? What if some new technology comes along and the Government can monitor your thinking 24x7 no matter where on the planet you may live? Is that ok with you? You might be "thinking" of sealing something, or perhaps committing murder. If the Government can stop you before you kill someone, or steal something, that's a good thing, right?
Do you see the problem with using every available bit of information you can get on a person?
If you really want to do some good, monitor our elected officials because they are vastly more evil than the general public.
September 1, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Money quote: "The study concluded that if DNA had been taken at the first arrest, 53 murders and rapes could have been prevented."
Of course don't let a little thing like protecting the innocent get in the way of coddling the repeat criminal offenders walking our streets.
Easy fix. You don't want to give your DNA - don't get arrested. DNA is as objective as you can get. There's no room for slick lawyers arguing that "they got the wrong guy". DNA doesn't lie.
September 1, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
chartguy writes:
As is beginning to be realized, the FBI's astronomical odds for DNA matches are not accurate.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/...
The FBI assumed that each loci was independent in their calculations. They're not. That reduces the odds considerably.
September 1, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
WHATRIGHTS writes:
ColoNative...Nice post, I am in total agreement, our judicial system was put into place to protect any innocent person from ever being falsely imprisoned.
I have never been arrested, but I also still believe we have some rights left to protect, especially when more and more innocent people are being falsely imprisoned due to oversight on behalf of the very people who are there to protect and serve.
September 1, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
GlacierDragon writes:
Instead of being all paranoid about what the DNA will be used for, perhaps we should consider laws constraining what it can be used for. It appears that having this information from a criminal standpoint can save lives (both physical and emotional).
I'd be fine with having my DNA on file. I'm not planning on committing any crimes. But, if something did happen to me, there would be more on file to identify me than currently. Murderers cut off hands, pull teeth and decapitate bodies to hide the identity of their victims. Tattoos and birthmarks can be removed. But DNA... if there's even a little bit of me left, they can let my family know that it is me.
Back to the criminal aspect, I also think that cops should be allowed to investigate partial matches. If your DNA is on file and your brother (sister, dad, mom, child) commits a crime, they can figure that out. As the laws stand in some states, they are not allowed to check that.
But I don't think it should be used for anything beyond the criminal justice system.
September 1, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
I helped develop the early GPS based parolee tracking system.
When I was asked " How much of a market do we have for these things? I replied " About 250 million of them"..
It looks like that prediction is coming true...
September 1, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jackieg218 writes:
I think this is a great idea and I will tell you why... I was a victim of sexual assault in 2001 and they have not found him as of yet. However, his DNA is on file now (what they collected off of me). This man drug me into a field and beat the total heck out of me and assaulted me sexually. If he ever commits a crime now they have his DNA from my case and I would be able to have some justice for what was done to me.
Would there still need to be a trial, yes of course there would. There is still the need to convict him for what was done; however, with out the DNA I would never be able to have that chance.
September 1, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
RealTexan writes:
Mike has a "not so happy" thought here. Having been 'involved' with the seedier side of society for years leads me to a memory. I met an individual once that was a 'counterfeiter'.....but get this, not just good old paper money folks, everything! From blue jeans to car batteries. How long is it into the future before some "enterprising" individual, with some level of genius, creates the worlds first counterfeit D.N.A.? Paranoia? Maybe, but then maybe not. Just a thought.
September 1, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
dwander501 writes:
Taking samples from convicted felons is just like their fingerprints. Taking samples from arrested citizens does trample on the innocent until proven guilty concept, but you don't have to be guilty to be jailed either. Just ask some of the guys that have been jailed for YEARS and released because DNA proved their innocence.
Take DNA at birth (I would NOT be shocked to find out this is already done). I am less worried about felons than I am about someone who is walking around in society because they simply didn't get caught.
If you got nothing to hide, you got no fear of a technology that could prove you NOT GUILTY.
September 1, 2008
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
WHATRIGHTS writes:
Can anyone who is for this ever tell me a time that they have ever read where a police officer, DA or judge went out of their way to prove someone innocent (other than their own) or they thought they had the wrong person so went to looking for a way to help someone wrongly accused?
Quit laying down and giving up your rights, one by one. I still want to have the right to require a search warrant to come into my house, not because I have anything to hide, but because I respect the document that our country was built on....I want the right to my privacy, I want my 5th ammendment to mean I have the right to remain silent, not because I have something to hide, but because maybe I don't have anything to add. Soon at this rate the government and ALL its tantacles won't even need our permission to do anything to anyone at anytime......
September 1, 2008
3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
vriss writes:
Well, if I am correct, we take DNA samples here in Oregon from anyone who has been arrested of a violent crime. To me, it is no different than taking fingerprints.