Transcript Applied Biosystems Governmental Affairs Program Update

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
[email protected]
Gordon Thomas
Honeywell
Government Affairs
Tacoma, Washington
Washington, DC
Seattle, Washington
THE DNA PROGRAM
Continuum
Five elements influenced by lawmakers
Named suspect-to-crime scene evidence
only, no database
•
•
Necessary first step
Small amounts of casework testing
Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database
Offender Database Legislation
The essential element: No database legislation
means no significant casework testing
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)
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
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.
Forensic DNA Program
Continuum Statistics
All Felons Legislation
Per 5 Million in State Population – Assuming full implementation
of Continuum and US Crime Statistics
Offender Database Samples
20,000
15,000
Sam ples Tested
10,000
5,000
0
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
4th Year
5th Year
Casework Samples
8 ,0 0 0
7 ,0 0 0
6 ,0 0 0
5 ,0 0 0
4 ,0 0 0
S a m ple s T e s t e d
3 ,0 0 0
2 ,0 0 0
1,0 0 0
0
1s t Y e a r
2 nd Y e a r
3 rd Y e a r
4th Year
5th Year
6th Year
7th Year
8th Year
On the eighth year after the passage of the legislation, an estimated 7,500 annual casework samples will be tested.
All Suspects Legislation
Per 5 Million in State Population – Assuming full implementation
of Continuum and US Crime Statistics
Offender Database Samples
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
Samples Tested
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
4th Year
5th Year
Casework Samples
16 ,0 0 0
14 ,0 0 0
12 ,0 0 0
10 ,0 0 0
8 ,0 0 0
Sam ples Tested
6 ,0 0 0
4 ,0 0 0
2 ,0 0 0
0
1s t Y e a r
2 nd Y e a r
3 rd Y e a r
4th Year
5th Year
6th Year
7th Year
8th Year
On the eighth year after the passage of the legislation, an estimated 16,000 annual casework samples will be tested
North Carolina DNA Program Growth
Offender Samples Analyzed
Annual Growth
Casework Analyzed
Annual Growth
40000
1200
35000
1000
30000
800
25000
600
20000
400
15000
10000
200
5000
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Pre-Expansion
Post-Expansion
Difference
950 CASES
1,963 CASES
1,013 CASES
12,000 OFFENDERS
87,000 OFFENDERS
75,000 OFFENDERS
Washington DNA Program Growth
Casework Analyzed
Annual Growth
400
Offender Sample Submissions
Annual Growth
30000
350
25000
300
250
20000
200
15000
150
10000
100
5000
50
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
*Casework data available only for no-suspect cases that are completed
Pre-Expansion
Post-Expansion
Difference
551 CASES
1,069 CASES
518 CASES
8,642 OFFENDERS
84,584 OFFENDERS
75,942 OFFENDERS
Oregon DNA Program Growth
Casework Submissions
Annual Growth
Offender Sample Submissions
Annual Growth
1600
35000
1400
30000
1200
25000
1000
20000
800
600
15000
400
10000
200
5000
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
0
1997 1988 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Pre-Expansion
Post-Expansion
Difference
1,650 CASES
6,008 CASES
4,358 CASES
12,000 OFFENDERS
69,800 OFFENDERS
57,800 OFFENDERS
Database
Legislation
All Convicted Felons States
1999 - 6 States required DNA from all convicted felons
2006 - 44 States require DNA from all convicted felons
Results of All Convicted Felons Effort
Enacted Legislation 2000-2006
2000/2001
567,000 database samples over five
years
Georgia
(2000)
Colorado
Florida
Michigan
Montana
Oregon
Texas
2004
420,000 database samples over five
years
California
Missouri
Rhode Island
South Carolina
West Virginia
2002
370,000 database samples over five
years
Arizona
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Utah
Washington
2005
350,000 database samples over five
years
North Dakota
Hawaii
Oklahoma
Indiana
Vermont
Ohio
Pennsylvania
2003
334,000 database samples over five
years
Alaska
Arkansas
Connecticut
Louisiana
Massachusett
Mississippi
New Jersey
North Carolina
South Dakota
2006
200,000 database samples over five
years
New York
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
Arrestee DNA Database Legislation
2006 through 2007
2006 – 11 states introduced
arrestee legislation
2007 – 25 states have introduced
arrestee legislation
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)
DNA Fingerprint Act (S. 1606)
Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (HR 3402. )
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
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 nonconvicted 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
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
States with Initiative Authority
Direct Initiative
Indirect Initiative
(Directly onto ballot)
(Legislative consideration first)
Alaska
Arkansas
Idaho
Montana
North Dakota
Oregon
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
Colorado
Missouri
Nebraska
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Washington
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Nevada
Ohio
New Mexico
New leader for advancing arrestee legislation: Jayann Sepich
The Balancing Test of
Arrestee DNA Legislation
Overcoming the privacy concern. Can it happen?
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
Congressional
Funding
Congressional Funding
Results (in $ millions) for federal DNA funding:
$180
$160
$140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
2001
2003
2005
2007
FY07 DNA Funding – A forgetable
Victory for DNA advocates
How did the advocates get from $108.5
million (FY 2006) to $175 million (FY2007)?
Senator Richard ShelbyWants DNA funding to be
reduced to less than $75
million per year
The Debbie Smith National
Tour - Dallas was enough
DNA Funding for FY08
?
President’s Budget
2008 Proposal
 No separate 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
Other Emerging
Policy Issues
CASEWORK
TURNAROUND… THE
MISSING PIECE?
Washington State 30-Day Stranger Rape Kit Project
Coming 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
Family Database Searches
60 Minutes – April 1
“ A Not So Perfect Match”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/2
3/60minutes/main2600721.shtml
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/2007-03-25dna-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”
Questions ?
www.dnaresource.com
[email protected]