HB 1094 -- DNA PROFILING SYSTEM

SPONSOR:  Mayer

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Crime
Prevention and Public Safety by a vote of 10 to 0.

This bill makes changes in the laws regarding the collection of
DNA evidence.  The bill:

(1)  Clarifies that forensic DNA analysis is admissible in any
criminal proceeding to prove any relevant fact;

(2)  Allows the state's DNA profiling system to be used to
investigate any crime.  Current law limits its use to
investigating violent or sex-related crimes;

(3)  Clarifies that the Department of Corrections may have DNA
samples collected by a contracted third party;

(4)  Requires a DNA sample to be collected from every person
convicted of a felony or any offense in Chapter 566, RSMo,
regarding sex crimes.  Current law does not require collection
for some offenses in Chapter 566 or for nonviolent offenses;

(5)  Clarifies that a DNA sample must be collected upon release
from any correctional facility, including a mental health
facility;

(6)  Makes the acceptance of an offender from another state under
any interstate compact conditioned upon the collection of a DNA
sample when the offender has been convicted of an offense which
would require a sample if committed in Missouri;

(7)  Prohibits the early release of any offender until the
offender has provided a DNA sample;

(8)  Requires an offender to provide another DNA sample if the
offender's DNA sample is not adequate for any reason;

(9)  Prohibits courts from excluding evidence or setting aside
any warrant or conviction that is based upon a DNA sample that
was obtained or placed in the database by mistake;

(10)  Establishes the DNA Database Fund to be administered by the
Department of Public Safety and requires a $160 fee to be
assessed on all offenders required to provide a DNA sample.  The
fund will be used to provide for the ongoing operation of the
state and local DNA index systems;

(11)  Makes all DNA records and biological materials confidential
and allows them to be disclosed only to government employees for
the performance of their public duties;

(12)  Limits the use of records from the DNA profiling system to
criminal investigations and proceedings and for law enforcement's
identification purposes;

(13)  Allows an individual whose criminal case was dismissed or
conviction reversed to request the court to order his or her DNA
record expunged;

(14)  Requires the State Highway Patrol's crime lab to expunge
all DNA records of an individual upon receipt of a certified copy
of the final court order reversing a conviction, as long as the
person is not otherwise required to submit a DNA sample;

(15)  Allows the patrol to refuse to expunge any physical
evidence obtained from a DNA sample if evidence relating to
another person would thereby be destroyed; and

(16)  Prohibits courts from excluding evidence or setting aside
any warrant or conviction due to a failure to expunge, or a delay
in expunging, DNA records.

FISCAL NOTE:  Estimated Net Cost on General Revenue Fund of More
than $2,516,034 in FY 2005, More than $1,678,003 in FY 2006, and
More than $1,683,171 in FY 2007.  No impact on Other State Funds
in FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that DNA profiling of all felons is
now the law in 31 states.  States have been solving several cold
cases when they convict an offender of a drug crime, take a DNA
sample, and match it with an unsolved violent crime.  In states
that have all felons profiling and DNA is recovered from a crime
scene that matched up with a person, 80% of the time that person
was in prison for a drug or property crime, not a violent crime.
Collecting DNA on all felons prevents crime.  DNA has been
described as the guilty person's worst nightmare and the innocent
person's best friend, because it is not biased and cannot be
manipulated.  It has revolutionized the way crime is investigated
and prosecuted.  We cannot fully utilize its potential unless we
have DNA samples in the system, allowing us to identify suspects.

Testifying for the bill were Representatives Mayer, Bivins, and
Jolly; Kansas City Area Crime Lab; Office of the Jackson County
Prosecutor; Metropolitan Organization to Counter Sexual Assault;
Missouri Victim Assistance Network; and Missouri Police Chiefs'
Association.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that testing all felons
is too broad in scope.  Profiling juvenile offenders, who could
be in the system for very minor offenses, raises other concerns.
Where does it stop?

Testifying against the bill was Missouri Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers.

OTHERS:  Others testifying on the bill say that the state
currently processes about 2,200 DNA samples per year.  The bill
would increase that amount to about 28,000 per year, requiring
four additional full-time employees.  However, having DNA samples
on file will allow law enforcement to arrest suspects before they
commit additional crimes.  This could save some of the law
enforcement investigation costs, as well as prevent crimes.  For
example, the investigation of a serial killer in St. Louis cost
approximately $750,000.  If DNA had been collected after a
robbery conviction years earlier, the killer could have been
identified after the first of 17 murders.

Others testifying on the bill was State Highway Patrol.

Richard Smreker, Senior Legislative Analyst

Missouri House of Representatives
92nd General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session
Last Updated September 23, 2004 at 11:14 am