Federal Grants Could Mean DNA at Arrest in Wisconsin
Some Wisconsin lawmakers have advocated for broader DNA collection, but it's come with a steep price tag. Now, they hope a new federal law could help.
Photos
Wisconsin doesn’t collect DNA from people arrested for felonies—only from those convicted.
Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has asked the state Legislature to change that. In a submitted column, Van Hollen wrote: “With a simple swab inside of an individual’s cheek to obtain a DNA sample, Wisconsin can do more to bring justice to victims and protect our citizens from offenders whose crimes have gone unsolved.”
Van Hollen wants the number of offender profiles in the state’s DNA databank expanded, and for law enforcement to get additional samples by collecting DNA from people arrested for felonies and some misdemeanors, and from those convicted of any misdemeanor offense.
The change would bring Wisconsin in line with the federal government and 28 other states, Van Hollen wrote.
But one of the biggest hurdles for the law is the cost. The Associated Press reported the Justice Department says it needs $7.2 million to fund the first two years of a DNA collection program, and that Van Hollen has proposed paying for the initative by directing $9.8 million in criminal surcharges away from school anti-alcohol and bullying efforts, prison guard training, gang prevention efforts and public defenders’ training.
A new federal law could mean help for Wisconsin to clear that. The bill established $10 million in annual grants for states to start collecting DNA at arrest.
Not everyone thinks it’s a good idea.
Stacy Harbuagh, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, told the Journal-Sentinel in April they oppose the measure because people who are not convicted of crimes would be required to give their DNA, which includes health information.
“We could be filling our databank full of very private information from potentially innocent people,” she told the JS in April.
And last week, Christ Ahmuty, executive director of the ACLU’s Wisconsin chapter ,told the AP more names in the database doesn’t automatically mean more crimes will be solved.
“It’s like wasting federal money instead of state money,” he told the AP. “There’s better things they can do.”
For advocates, however, there are plenty of stories of victims whose attackers could have been identified much faster had DNA been collected at arrest for felonies or on conviction for misdemeanors.
The federal Katie’s Law, which provides the $10 million in state grants, is named for Katie Sepich, who was fatally attacked outside her New Mexico home in 2003. Her attacker’s skin and blood were found under her fingernails, and that DNA was found to match DNA on file for a man serving time for aggravated burglary. Her parents began working to expand the use of DNA in solving crimes.
In his column, J.B. Van Hollen made note of a Madison sexual assault from June 2000, where a woman was attacked in a parking garage by an unknown assailant. DNA recovered during the rape investigation was sent to the data bank, but no match was found until a decade later. Christopher R. Golden was convicted of a felony in 2010 and the DNA collected then matched the sample from the 2000 sexual assault.
Jaime Lannister
1:57 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Sure, why not collect DNA from the innocent? If all criminals are citizens then all citizens are potential criminals.
Denise Lockwood
10:05 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Winter is coming... ;)
Mike Itzenhuiser
10:42 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
And the sky is falling
Matt
1:59 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
This is very interesting...Not 100% sure how I feel about it. I like the idea of very serious crimes having DNA on like a blind database where once the sample is in the system, the physical sample is destroyed. So that there is never a fear of planted or tampered evidence.
I also think any sex crime should have DNA taken, because there are over 221,000 (http://www.rainn.org/news-room/news/rape-kit-backlog) rape and murder kits that have not been tested.
CowDung
2:27 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I am concerned that this seems to be approaching 'search and seizure' without first establishing cause.
Bren
3:31 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
My concern is about individuals arrested but not convicted. Is their sample returned to them if there is no conviction?
CowDung
3:34 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
For once, I think we are in something of an agreement on an issue, Bren...
Bren
4:00 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
It was bound to happen some day, Cow! ; )
Craig
4:10 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Certain careers require fingerprinting, which is held in a FBI database. If those prints are ever found at a crime scene, the computer will link the print with the person associated. AND they were never arrested...
I have no problem with DNA collection. Maybe we should swab all newborns for DNA. All voters for DNA. Create a huge database to solve all past and future crimes where DNA is left behind.
Heather Asiyanbi
5:49 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
OMG - I think the world just stopped turning! ;) Nice to see some agreement and civil discourse at the same time.
Denise Lockwood
3:38 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Wow... I think you guys have made my day!
Denise Lockwood
4:02 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I'm thinking one of you owes the other a beer....
Bren
4:06 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
; )
Nuitari
6:03 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Van Hollen needs to work on not closing more businesses before sucking my blood.
Bren
9:09 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
And the surprises continue. Nuitari, I agree with you.
Nuitari
6:29 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
I had to call one of my own out for once. Of course, I'm sure that criminal Eric Holder tightened the screws on him.
jbw
6:26 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Did they ever perfect those technologies for manipulating DNA samples and tests? The ones that let you pass off your DNA as someone else's? I remember it was still a novelty a few years ago.
It's unfortunate that emotion generally trumps science in this area. DNA tests, if they're done flawlessly, still only give you a variable probability of a match between two samples. In a courtroom it's generally misrepresented that they establish the presence or absence of a person at the scene of a crime with perfect certainty. The same is done more loosely with fingerprints, where how loose and partial the match can be and still be called a "definite" match depends on how badly a lawyer wants to win his case.
If we compile a large enough database of fingerprints and DNA samples we can get the false positive matches, or "close enough" matches, up to a substantial number per year. I'm not sure that's a worthy goal.
Str8shooter
8:02 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
jbw- I personally don't know the science behind DNA and fingerprints but forensic analysts testify that the likelihood specific DNA does not match a particular person is something like 1 in 3 times the worlds population. So to find another person in Wisconsin with the same DNA when science at least shows you would need 3 times the worlds population to get another match is good enough for me. And the fact that many if not most of the suspects where recovered matching fingerprints are recovered confess to crimes makes me believe fingerprint comparison is very accurate.
BUT to stay more on topic...my concern also is what happens to someone's DNA if they are not convicted? If the DNA sample is thrown out then I'm leaning towards this being ok.
John Wilson
12:20 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Str8shooter -
You KNOW... once the government gets its hands on any data it goes directly into one database or another and it just never goes away...
Yes, I know, they tell you it will not be stored, but destroyed... Wisconsin is sunny and 67 degrees every day of the year.
mike paczesny
11:27 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
no conviction no dna :D
patchreader 123
12:06 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
1) The 2012 and 2013 NDAA (martial law?);
http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/22837/ndaa-what-obama-hoped-you-wouldn-t-notice-about-this-bill
2) FAA Modernization and Reform Act (domestic drones?);
http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/22837/ndaa-what-obama-hoped-you-wouldn-t-notice-about-this-bill
3) Reauthorization of various Patriot Act provisions; and now
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/02/27/obama-signs-patriot-act-reauthorization/
4) Pre-conviction DNA sampling?
Anyone worried yet about a continued erosion of their civil liberties? Such an erosion is and has been ongoing. Many are too busy arguing over pointless, tired, partisan rhetoric ("damned Libs; "damned Right-wingers) while both Dem and Rep parties are passing laws that arguably violate the Bill of Rights.
Mike Itzenhuiser
3:59 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Nobody in their right mind is worried patchreader. If you count on the media to prove your claims, you are an idiot.
Johnny Blade
12:25 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
The ignorant have spoken .... Go back to eating lead paint Oh you can't anymore your head is way to far up your azzz
John Wilson
12:13 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Van Hollen will not be satisfied until he has a video camera in every citizen's bathroom, an active GPS in all our mobile phones and automobiles, a micro-chip with audio in every person in the state.
Disregarding the massive invasion of privacy, how much is all this going to cost,how much will the Federal government bill be, and our taxes be increased, plus government employees to input, track and check this data, is this all going to cost us.
Finally, just how will the state of Wisconsin benefit from all this intrusion and cost?
This really sounds like a smaller government with much less regulation and intrusion in our lives to me!
Richard Head
5:18 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
*WOW* - "Van Hollen will not be satisfied..."
Are you serious, or joking? Your fears are irrational and defy all logic. Do you watch vast amounts of TV - perhaps you have become divorced from reality!
Psychotic Disorders (including Schizophrenia)
Common Characteristics
The major symptom of these disorders is psychosis, or delusions and hallucinations. Delusions are false beliefs that significantly hinder a person's ability to function. For example, believing that people are trying to hurt you when there is no evidence of this, or believing that you are somebody else, such as Jesus Christ or Cleopatra. Hallucinations are false perceptions. They can be visual (seeing things that aren't there), auditory (hearing), olfactory (smelling), tactile (feeling sensations on your skin that aren't really there, such as the feeling of bugs crawling on you), or taste."
http://allpsych.com/disorders/psychotic/index.html
Richard Head
5:26 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
What's wrong with a DNA database? I'm all for this - but then again, I'm not involved in any criminal activity with anything to hide. Medical issues? Didn't we just have this discussion with guns? Since I'm not on any medicines - I have nothing to hide - NOW I'm suddenly wondering who is mentally ill on Patch or on psychotropic drugs, or self medicating. It may explain some of what I read....
The Innocence Project:
"There have been 302 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
18 of the 302 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.
• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,036.
• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php
DNA is a useful tool. What about the dreaded "mistakes" in the criminal justice system? It lowers those - greatly. Too many people have already been wrongly convicted.
CowDung
8:18 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
If it were voluntary, then there would be no issue with it.
Richard Head
8:50 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Have you ever been arrested? Indicted?
DNA is your friend - and can help to avoid a trial and conviction.
Arrest = Automatic DNA sample in an ideal world.
Ever been falsely arrested? Indicted? I have - got the arrest officially "EXPUNGED" - they needed my fingerprints to do that - they stay on file. Also - the false arrest record is kept in the system - for LEO use only. It's one of the many realities of modern society.
Considering how much information you already provide, and what is available in the public domain, I must conclude you have an unrealistic operating view of the Real World. I don't share your irrational fears.
Patriot
5:49 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Can you say police State!!! Little by little the elitists will chip away at our rights. Just as the Obama machine will be announcing their plan for gun control today.
Richard Head
8:54 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
No need for hysterics. The Supreme Court will strike it down.
You are the type the Obama Regime loves - ignore their unlawful proclamations - they will get struck down. The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the 2nd. amendment.
"In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government"
Are you an FBI disinformation agent trying to stir up trouble? Perhaps a "misinformed Patriot".
Johnny Blade
12:28 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Yeah why don't we just micro chip you at birth .. if your doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide but your stupidity
patchreader 123
8:58 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Actually Mike, I don't "count on" certain portions of the media to prove anything for me. The proof is in the language of the law itself. The only reason why I included links to the media was to summarize (i.e., dumb down if you will) the content of the Laws at issue so that people such as yourself could readily understand the underlying substance of my comment.
By the way, if President Obama unilaterally implements his 18 plus gun control measures (another erosion of civil liberties, especially where such measures are not implemented via legislation?), possibly adding more legal restrictions likely applicable to a man who boasts about answering his door with a .45 tucked in his pocket, it will likely be you sincerely claiming that the "sky is falling" - that is, assuming you have the intellect to understand the ramifications of such measures. However, I’m guessing that you will resort to the media to gain any such understanding. Ironic, isn’t it?
mike paczesny
1:18 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
im glad 4 people think this is a good idea ;]
mike paczesny
1:18 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
... arent they special ;]