HCS SS SB 1000 -- DNA PROFILING

SPONSOR:  Bartle (Mayer)

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Crime
Prevention and Public Safety by a vote of 17 to 0.

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

(1)  Establishes the DNA Database Fund, to be administered by the
Department of Public Safety and used for the ongoing operation of
the state and local DNA index systems;

(2)  Establishes a $30 surcharge on all felony cases, a $15
surcharge on all misdemeanor cases, and a 50-cent surcharge on
all traffic cases to be assessed as court costs and deposited
into the fund.  This funding provision will expire on September
1, 2007;

(3)  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;

(4)  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;

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

(6)  Requires county jail personnel to collect DNA samples from
offenders under the custody of a county jail, subject to
appropriations;

(7)  Clarifies that a DNA sample must be collected upon release
from any correctional facility or any other detention facility;

(8)  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;

(9)  Requires the Board of Probation and Parole to revoke any
offender's probation or parole upon the refusal to submit a DNA
sample;

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

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

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

(13)  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;

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

(15)  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

(16)  Allows a person who has been incarcerated and then
exonerated through the use of DNA evidence to collect restitution
from the state for each year the person was incarcerated in an
amount equal to the federal poverty guidelines for those years,
up to a total of $60,000.  Payments will be made from the DNA
Profiling Analysis Fund.

The provisions requiring the collection of DNA samples become
effective January 1, 2005.

FISCAL NOTE:  No impact on General Revenue Fund in FY 2005, FY
2006, and FY 2007.  Estimated Effect on Other State Funds of a
cost of Unknown to an income of $45,640 in FY 2005, a cost of
Unknown to an income of $152,588 in FY 2006, and a cost of
Unknown to an income of $101,442 in FY 2007.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that DNA evidence allows us to
prosecute crimes with a degree of certitude unparalleled in
criminal prosecution.  The saliva swab test is less invasive than
the taking of fingerprints.  The use of DNA evidence protects the
innocent from unnecessary investigation and prosecution; and it
identifies perpetrators of crimes, as long as we have their DNA
sample in the system.  Very few DNA cases go to trial, because
almost all of them plead guilty.  Thousands of hours of police
investigation are saved every year because of DNA evidence.  The
states that collect DNA samples from all felons have discovered
that the majority of positive identifications from DNA have been
from felons whose DNA sample was collected after a property crime
or drug offense.  The evidence shows that these offenders are
also committing violent crimes.  The use of DNA evidence
significantly reduces crime because repeat offenders are
identified, prosecuted, and incarcerated before they can commit
more crimes.  The U. S. Justice Department estimates the average
rapist commits eight to 12 sexual assaults.  When the offender's
DNA is on file, he is identified immediately and other assaults
can be prevented.  With the limited resources currently
available, the State Highway Patrol Crime Lab can process only
2,200 samples per year.  The bill would require 100,000 samples
to be collected and analyzed, so a funding mechanism is required.

Testifying for the bill were Senator Bartle; Office of Jackson
County Prosecutor; State Highway Patrol Crime Lab; and Office of
Cole County Prosecutor.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that the funding source
is inadequate and enacting a law that would charge someone $30
who has already been convicted would be ex post facto
legislation.  The bill does not specify mouth swabs as the method
of collection, so more invasive methods are possible.  Making DNA
records confidential would prevent defense attorneys from having
access to them while prosecutors are obligated to provide any
exculpatory evidence to the defendant.  The bill would require
all felons, including someone incarcerated for writing bad
checks, to submit a DNA sample.  These people are not suspects
for violent crimes, and their inclusion is unnecessary.

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

Richard Smreker, Senior Legislative Analyst

Missouri House of Representatives
92nd General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session
Last Updated September 23, 2004 at 11:16 am