Transcript Applied Biosystems Governmental Affairs Program Update

Forensic DNA Policy
A Global Perspective
CIPAE Conference
December 2, 2008
Presented by:
Gordon Thomas Honeywell
Governmental Affairs
Tacoma, WA (253) 620-6500
Washington, DC (202) 258-2301
Seattle, WA (206) 676-7500
Brasilia, Brazil
Tim Schellberg
[email protected]
Gordon Thomas
Honeywell
Government Affairs
Tacoma, Washington
Washington, DC
OFFENDER DNA DATABASES
HOW DOES IT WORK?
Convicted
Offender
Forensic
Evidence
CODIS Architecture - Different Levels
NDIS
SDIS
Change
to
Californi
a
Los Angeles
Change to
Texas
LDIS
San Francisco
Dallas
Houston
Offender DNA Databases
SOLVE MORE CRIME
PREVENT MORE CRIME
EXONERATE THE INNOCENT
COST / BENEFIT
Your Offender Database Controls
the “Hit Rates”
Estimated Hit Rates Based on
United States and United Kingdom Data
Sex offenders
5%
Sex offenders & Violent offenders
10%
Sex offenders, Violent offenders
and Property crimes
20%
All crimes, minus minor crimes
40%
All crimes
50%
All arrestees
60%
THE 5 STAGES OF
FORENSIC DNA PROGRAMS
Global Observations
Named suspect-to-crime scene evidence
only – NO DATABASE
Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database
Databases without offenders
Suspects and crime scenes compared against
crime scene databases (some suspect databases too)
Named suspect-to-crime scene evidence only – NO DATABASE
Databases without offenders
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
Offender Database Legislation
Unsolved Casework Demand
• Increases as database grows – Higher Hit rates encourage more
non-suspect demand.
Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database
Offender Database Legislation
Unsolved Casework Demand
Unsolved Casework Demand
Urgency (turnaround time)
Status of DNA Databases
throughout the world (add world
category under Europe)
United States
England and Wales
Europe
United States
U.S. DNA Database Legislative
Time-Line
1988 – States begin requiring DNA from offenders
1991 - Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) establishes
guidelines on state sex offender DNA database laws
- FBI promotes the passage of sex offender DNA
database laws
- FBI develops CODIS concept
1994 - Congress enacts the DNA Identification Act -- CODIS is formally
created
U.S. Time-Line (continued)
1996 - Most states have sex offender DNA database statutes
1999 - 50 states have enacted sex offender DNA database laws
- States begin push for all convictions (minus minor crimes)
database legislation
- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Criminal
Defense Bar organize to oppose all convictions legislation
2000 - Congress enacts the DNA Backlog Elimination Act (appropriates
$140 million to states for DNA analysis)
U.S Time-Line (continued)
2005 - A total of 43 states pass have passed all crimes (minus minor
crimes) legislation
- President’s DNA Initiative of $1 Billion is passed and begins
implementation
- California implements comprehensive arrestee DNA testing law
2008
-
A push to arresting testing legislation – 14 states have passed
law so far
Immigration DNA testing to begin
Victim groups increase visibility
New privacy issues emerge, such as familial testing
United States
Database Size
– 3 Federal and 50 state databases
– Common themes exist, but all 50 states have different database
legislation
– 6.2 million offender samples
– 237,000 crime scene samples
– 47 states collect from all convicted offenders, except minor crimes
– Remaining 3 states collect from all violent crimes and burglary
– 14 states have laws to collect DNA from arrested offenders
– Purging: Convicted offenders – No
Arrested offenders - Some
United States
Funding
– States fund most of the costs
– Federal government operates central database
– Local governments pay very little
– $1 Billion federal investment through “President’s DNA Initiative”
Problems
- Backlogs are still significant: Private labs vs. building sufficient public
labs
- Still looking for a shift in law enforcement collection habits
- Turn around time lags far behind United Kingdom
- Privacy concern with arrestee samples
- Local governments generally don’t pay for testing
Offender Database Legislation
2008 - 47 States require DNA from all convicted felons
2008 - 14 States required DNA from arrested offenders
Observations of the offender
legislation efforts(2000-2008)
•
Credit goes to the forensic community Federal Government, DNA Commission on the Future of
DNA Evidence and local prosecutors.
•
Convicted offender legislation passed rapidly, but arrestee is taking longer.
•
Legislators took a long time to understand the databases
•
Opponents, such as ACLU, and Defense Bar were mostly quiet for convicted offender laws after
having concerns initially.
•
“Pass it and the money will come” was an essential strategy.
•
Federal funding is important
•
Victims are becoming more involved.
•
Prevention data is essential
•
Strategy and compromise will be essential
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Database Size





One national database – 4.5 offender (subject) samples
Operated by the Forensic Science Service (FSS)
Legislation requires permanent databasing of all people arrested
Nearly 427,000 Crime Scene samples – Average 60,000 per year.
Hit Rate is current 55% and expected to rise
 See the United Kingdom’s annual report at
http://www.npia.police.uk/en/11403.htm
Funding
 Strong financial support from national government to operate FSS
 Local governments also invest heavily in casework, by reimbursing FSS for casework
Collection and casework
 Aggressive crime scene casework
 Adds between 1,000 to 1,500 profiles to the crime scene database each week
 Over 1,700 crime scene to crime scene or suspect to crime scene hits per week
Turn Around Time (in Days)
by Type of Case
50
40
30
20
10
0
Burglary
Drugs
Assault
Murder
1999
2000
2001
Sexual
Offense
Europe - include all the way to
Russia (see list)
Europe
Current Database Laws
 All but a few countries have databases (link to slide)
 Most have passed offender database legislation
 Details http://www.enfsi.eu/page.php?uid=98
 Extensive purging required
 Database size varies (link to slide)
 Over 50% using CODIS software (link to slide)
The Future of European Databases
 Strong recognition that the future is suspect databases
 European wide searches through the Prum Treaty
 ENFSI DNA –Database Management Review and Recommendations
http://www.enfsi.eu/page.php?uid=98
 Interpol DNA Gateway Database
 Australia CrimTrac
ENFSI Recommendation
• Recommendation #1
– “Every EU/ENFSI – county should establish a forensic DNA-database and
specific legislation for its implementation and management”
• Recommendation #3
– “To increase the chance of a DNA-profile of a stain to match to a
person, the number of persons which are likely to cause matches in
a DNA-database be as high as legally (and financially) possible”
DNA Databases Countries
All countries, but Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Russia, Turkey and Northern
Ireland
Rest of the World (Map of world)
First click brings in US, UK and Europe. Second click brings in other established databases and third click brings in

Established and growing DNA databases
(Other than US, UK and Europe):
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
South Africa
Japan
China
Israel

Countries Pursuing Databases
Chile
India
Uruguay
Brazil
Argentina
Caribbean Nations
Bosnia
Singapore
United Arab Emirates
Columbia
South Korea
Malaysia
Thailand
Philippines
Mexico

Countries pursuing databases
VICTIM ADVOCACY
The concept of victim groups
promoting DNA database laws
is aggressively expanding to
other parts of the world
United State’s Debbie Smith
The Debbie Smith Act and Beyond
USA – DNA Funding to
Continue
DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT SIGNED BY
PRESIDENT OCTOBER 8, 2008
The bill reauthorizes federal funding for grants to state and local
crime labs to assist with backlog reduction and capacity
enhancement. The grants are reauthorized at $151 million through
2014.
- Rob and Debbie Smith
with Congresswoman
Maloney of NY
and Congressman
Reichert of WA
7/21/2015
33
New Mexico
New leader for advancing arrestee legislation: Jayann Sepich
:
Drive to Arrestee Testing:
Career criminals are recidivists
and their crimes become more
Chicago study of 8 convicted
violent over time.
offenders
60 preventable violent crimes,
including 30
rapes and 22 8murders
offenders
60 unnecessary victims
Other Emerging
Policy Issues
Familial Searching
60 Minutes – April 1
“ A Not So Perfect Match”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/2
3/60minutes/main2600721.shtml
What is the status on Brazil’s
effort to Establishing a forensic
DNA Program?
Moving forward over time
• SENASP proposal awaiting approval by
Ministry of Justice
• Ministry of Justice likely to submit to proposal
similar to SENASP’s to Brazilian Congress this
year??
• Various drafts of legislation already prepared
• Brazilian officials in discussion with FBI to use
CODIS software for databasing.
Lessons Learned for Brazil
 Create a database law that
maximizes the “hit rate”
–
Make database a priority
–
Include all suspects, not just convicted
offenders
–
If privacy problems arise for including
suspects, destroy suspect sample after
profiling
–
Avoid purging profiles from database
–
Include juveniles
–
Include all categories of incarceration
–
Do not take incremental steps
–
Retroactive Provision: Include convicted
offenders that are currently incarcerated or
under supervision. Add them
immediately.
–
Utilize private laboratory outsourcing to
reduce initial costs
–
Use most efficient collection method (saliva
swabs)
Lessons Learned for Brazil
Collection
Strategies
– Implement “Rape Victim DNA
Program”
• Instant results
• Generates strong public
support
– National intensive effort to make
law enforcement aware of DNA
– Utilize free DNA collection
training guides produced by the
United States and
England/Wales
– Avoid testing delay: Consider
outsourcing more basic cases,
such as Rape Kits
Lessons Learned for Brazil
Funding strategies
– Offender/suspect database:
Collect now - analyze later
– Offender/suspect database:
Offender pays for inclusion
costs
– Casework: England and
Wales model - Local
government pays for
casework
– Casework: United States Large grant program from
federal government
Lessons Learned for Brazil
Develop Strong
Support Network
– Make sure agency
controlling databases are
actively supportive
– Educate local law
enforcement and prosecutor
leaders
– Gain victim group support
– Address civil rights concerns
– Educate relevant legislators
and legislative staff
Questions ?
www.dnaresource.com
[email protected]