HCS HB 1243, 1094 & 931 -- CRIME

SPONSOR:  Mayer

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Crime
Prevention and Public Safety by a vote of 16 to 0.

This substitute makes changes to the laws regarding crime.

DNA PROFILING

The substitute expands the collection and use of DNA evidence in
criminal investigations.  The substitute:

(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 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 disclosure 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 be destroyed;

(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; and

(17)  Establishes a $30 surcharge on all felony cases, a $15
surcharge on all misdemeanor cases, and a $1 surcharge on all
traffic cases to be assessed as court costs and deposited into
the DNA Database Fund.

TRAFFIC OFFENSES

The substitute makes changes to the laws regarding traffic
offenses.  The substitute:

(1)  Replaces references to the offense of driving while
intoxicated with the broader term "intoxication-related offense"
in several provisions for the purpose of determining punishment
or the number of prior convictions.  Intoxication-related
offenses include driving while intoxicated, driving with
excessive blood alcohol content, involuntary manslaughter with a
vehicle while intoxicated, assault of a law enforcement officer
with a vehicle while intoxicated, and driving under the influence
of alcohol or drugs in violation of a county or municipal
ordinance;

(2)  Allows law enforcement officials, after obtaining a search
warrant, to collect blood, saliva, or urine from a person under
the age of 21 who is arrested for an intoxication-related driving
offense, even though the person has refused the test.  The person
will still face license revocation for refusing the test;

(3)  Makes a technical change in how the offense of driving while
revoked becomes a felony.  Under current law, this offense is a
class A misdemeanor; and a fourth offense within a 10-year period
is a class D felony.  If the person has been convicted of an
alcohol-related offense, then the third offense of driving while
revoked is a class D felony.  One requirement for the offense
being charged as a felony is that the person served at least 10
days in jail for one of those offenses.  The substitute removes
that requirement;

(4)  Makes a technical change for determining the prior offenses
in a driving while revoked or alcohol-related offense.
Currently, convictions in municipal courts for these offenses are
not counted as prior offenses unless the municipal judge is an
attorney.  The substitute removes the requirement that the
municipal judge be an attorney;

(5)  Allows the court to order a 90-day driver's license
suspension of any person convicted of illegally passing a school
bus;

(6)  Prohibits any person other than emergency personnel from
using any device to change a traffic control signal.  The sale of
these devices will be prohibited to any person other than
emergency personnel.  Any person who violates this provision will
be guilty of a class A misdemeanor;

(7)  Requires the Director of the Department of Revenue to return
noncommercial drivers' licenses and remove suspensions from
driving records when licensees provide proof of the disposition
of charges and payment of all applicable fines and court costs.
In cases involving commercial drivers' licenses, the director
will reinstate licenses upon receiving proof of the disposition
of charges and payment of all applicable fines and court costs;
and

(8)  Exempts from the commercial driver's license requirements
any person who drives emergency equipment.  Currently, people are
exempt only when driving under emergency conditions.

SENTENCING PROVISIONS

In its provisions regarding sentencing, the substitute:

(1)  Clarifies that felons convicted prior to June 27, 2003, are
not eligible to petition the sentencing court for early release.
That date was the effective date of Senate Bill 5 passed in 2003,
which allowed persons with no prior prison commitment who have
been convicted of a nonviolent C or D felony to petition the
court for early release after having served at least 120 days in
prison.  The substitute contains an emergency clause for this
section;

(2)  Repeals a law enacted in 2003 which divided all criminal
cases submitted to a jury into two stages;

(3)  Allows courts to order a defendant to enter an offender
treatment program, work-release program, or a community-based
residential or nonresidential program;

(4)  Repeals a provision that requires defendants to be sentenced
according to the laws in effect at the time of sentencing, if a
criminal statute has been amended that reduces the penalty; and

(5)  Repeals a provision which allows the Board of Probation and
Parole to convert an offender's consecutive prison sentence into
a concurrent sentence.

COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT RESTITUTION FUND

The substitute creates the County Law Enforcement Restitution
Fund.  The substitute:

(1)  Allows counties to establish the fund by ordinance.  The
fund will receive money from court-ordered restitution not
exceeding $275 for any charged offense.  If a defendant fails to
make a payment, probation may be revoked.  The fund may only be
used for specified law enforcement expenditures and will be
supervised by a board of five trustees appointed by certain
county officials;

(2)  Prohibits counties from reducing any law enforcement
agency's budget as a result of establishing the fund;

(3)  Subjects any county law enforcement restitution fund to
audits; and

(4)  Prohibits, after September 1, 2004, the creation of any
county fund designed to collect money for the payment of
additional expenses incurred by the county.  Any moneys received
by any county fund created after September 1, 2004, must be
deposited into the county's general revenue fund.

OTHER COURT COSTS AND FEES

In provisions regarding court costs and other fees, the
substitute:

(1)  Increases court costs in criminal cases for deposit into law
enforcement training funds.  The substitute increases from $2 to
$3 a surcharge that counties and municipalities may assess and
increases from $1 to $2 a surcharge that is required to be
assessed in criminal cases involving criminal or traffic laws,
county ordinances, or municipal ordinances.  The maximum amount
that may be retained by counties or municipalities for this
purpose is increased from $1,500 to $3,500, with excess funds to
be transferred to the general revenue fund of the county or
municipality;

(2)  Requires the Attorney General's office to investigate any
alleged supplanting of law enforcement training funds by a county
or municipality and requires these funds, if found to be
supplanted, to be reinstated; and

(3)  Increases from $14 to $20 the fees the State Highway Patrol
charges for criminal record requests involving a fingerprint
search and increases from $5 to $10 requests that do not involve
a fingerprint search.

CRIMES

In other provisions regarding crimes, the substitute:

(1)  Creates the crime of misuse of a power of attorney.  The
crime is committed when an agent's actions result in the
unauthorized disposition of a principal's assets for the benefit
of a third party.  The crime is a class A misdemeanor when the
value of the assets is $500 or less and a class C felony when the
value is more than $500 or for a second or subsequent offense;

(2)  Creates the crime of endangering a corrections employee, a
class D felony.  The crime is committed when a prisoner causes a
corrections facility employee to come into contact with the
prisoner's bodily fluids.  The crime is a class B felony if the
prisoner knows he or she is infected with HIV or hepatitis.
Under current law, this act falls under the crime of aggravated
harassment of an employee and applies to cases involving
corrections employees as well as employees in any mental health
facility or any secure facility operated by the Division of Youth
Services;

(3)  Makes it a class D felony for a person who has been civilly
committed as a sexual predator to escape from commitment.  This
provision contains an emergency clause; and

(4)  Clarifies that the crime of resisting arrest occurs when the
person is fleeing from a detention or stop by a law enforcement
officer.

FISCAL NOTE:  Estimated Effect on General Revenue Fund of a cost
of Unknown to an income of Less than $100,000 in FY 2005, FY
2006, and FY 2007.  Estimated Effect on Other State Funds of a
cost of More than $21,093 to an income of $2,516,316 in FY 2005,
a cost of More than $1,008 to an income of $2,628,680 in FY 2006,
and a cost of More than $1,008 to an income of $2,577,534 in FY
2007.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters of HB 1094 and HB 931 say that DNA
profiling of all felons is 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 felon profiling and DNA
is recovered from a crime scene that matched 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; however, it cannot
be fully utilized unless DNA samples are in the system, allowing
identification of suspects.

Supporters of HB 1243 say that the bifurcated trial process
created last year has not been followed by many courts and
repealing it will actually save money.

Testifying for HB 1094 and HB 931 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.  Testifying for HB 1243 was
Representative Lipke (157).

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.

Testifying against HB 1094 and HB 931 was the Missouri
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

OTHERS:  Others testifying on HB 1094 and HB 931 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 more crimes.  In addition to preventing
crimes, this would trim the costs of law enforcement
investigations.  For example, the investigation of a serial
killer in St. Louis cost approximately $750,000.  If DNA had been
collected after he was convicted of robbery years earlier, the
police would have identified him after the first murder he
committed.  He went on to rape and murder 16 additional women
over a period of years.

Others testifying on HB 1094 and HB 931 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 11:15 am