Forensic DNA PolicyA Global Perspective

CIPAE Conference

December 2, 2008Brasilia, Brazil

Tim Schellbergtims@gth-gov.comPresented by:

Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental AffairsTacoma, WA (253) 620-6500Washington, DC (202) 258-2301Seattle, WA (206) 676-7500

Gordon Thomas Honeywell Government Affairs Tacoma, Washington Washington, DC

OFFENDER DNA DATABASES HOW DOES IT WORK?

CODIS Architecture - Different Levels

NDISSDIS LDISChange to Texas Change to CaliforniaLos AngelesSan FranciscoDallasHouston

Offender DNA DatabasesSOLVE MORE CRIME

PREVENT MORE CRIME

EXONERATE THE INNOCENT

COST / BENEFIT

Your Offender Database Controls the Hit RatesEstimated Hit Rates Based on United States and United Kingdom Data

Sex offenders 5%

Sex offenders & Violent offenders10%

Sex offenders, Violent offenders and Property crimes 20%

All crimes, minus minor crimes40%

All crimes 50%

All arrestees 60%

THE 5 STAGES OF FORENSIC DNA PROGRAMSGlobal Observations

Named suspect-to-crime scene evidence only NO DATABASE

Databases without offenders Suspects and crime scenes compared against crime scene databases (some suspect databases too)

Offender Database Legislation The essential element: No database legislation means no significant casework testing

Unsolved Casework Demand Increases as database grows Higher Hit rates encourage more non-suspect demand.

Urgency (turnaround time)

Status of DNA Databases throughout the world (add world category under Europe)United States

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)2000 - Congress enacts the DNA Backlog Elimination Act (appropriates $140 million to states for DNA analysis)1996 - Most states have sex offender DNA database statutes1999 - 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

U.S Time-Line (continued)

2005 - A total of 43 states pass have passed all crimes (minus minor crimes) legislation- Presidents DNA Initiative of $1 Billion is passed and begins implementation- California implements comprehensive arrestee DNA testing law

2008A push to arresting testing legislation 14 states have passed law so farImmigration DNA testing to beginVictim groups increase visibilityNew privacy issues emerge, such as familial testing

United StatesDatabase Size3 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 samples47 states collect from all convicted offenders, except minor crimesRemaining 3 states collect from all violent crimes and burglary14 states have laws to collect DNA from arrested offendersPurging: Convicted offenders No Arrested offenders - Some

United StatesFunding States fund most of the costsFederal government operates central databaseLocal governments pay very little $1 Billion federal investment through Presidents DNA Initiative

Problems Backlogs are still significant: Private labs vs. building sufficient public labs Still looking for a shift in law enforcement collection habitsTurn around time lags far behind United KingdomPrivacy concern with arrestee samplesLocal governments generally dont pay for testing

Offender Database Legislation

2008 - 47 States require DNA from all convicted felons2008 - 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 KingdomDatabase Size One national database 4.5 offender (subject) samplesOperated by the Forensic Science Service (FSS)Legislation requires permanent databasing of all people arrestedNearly 427,000 Crime Scene samples Average 60,000 per year.Hit Rate is current 55% and expected to rise

See the United Kingdoms annual report at http://www.npia.police.uk/en/11403.htm

FundingStrong financial support from national government to operate FSS Local governments also invest heavily in casework, by reimbursing FSS for casework

Collection and caseworkAggressive 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

Europe - include all the way to Russia (see list)

EuropeCurrent 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=98Extensive purging requiredDatabase size varies (link to slide)Over 50% using CODIS software (link to slide)

The Future of European DatabasesStrong recognition that the future is suspect databasesEuropean wide searches through the Prum Treaty ENFSI DNA Database Management Review and Recommendations http://www.enfsi.eu/page.php?uid=98

Interpol DNA Gateway DatabaseAustralia 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 CountriesAll 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 Countries pursuing databases

Established and growing DNA databases (Other than US, UK and Europe):

AustraliaNew ZealandCanadaSouth AfricaJapanChinaIsrael

Countries Pursuing Databases

ChileIndiaUruguayBrazilArgentinaCaribbean NationsBosniaSingaporeUnited Arab Emirates ColumbiaSouth KoreaMalaysiaThailandPhilippinesMexico

VICTIM ADVOCACY

The concept of victim groups promoting DNA database laws is aggressively expanding to other parts of the world

United States 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

As recently as last month this commitment was renewed by the passage of the reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act.

New Mexico New leader for advancing arrestee legislation: Jayann Sepich

Chicago study of 8 convicted offenders

60 preventable violent crimes, including 30rapes and 22 murders: Drive to Arrestee Testing:Career criminals are recidivists and their crimes become more violent over time.

Why are States and countries around the world continuing to expand the scope of their legislation? A quick look a recent study conducted by the city of Chicago clearly shows that many career criminals are recidivists and that their crimes become more violent over time.

The City of Chicago studied the criminal histories of eight convicted offenders. They were able to show that if any of the offenders had been required to provide DNA upon arrest, a number of heinous crimes could have been prevented. In fact, if all of the offenders had been required to submit a DNA sample at the same time as they were fingerprinted during their first arrest, 60 crimes, including 30 rapes and 22 murders would have been prevented.

Furthermore, the study revealed that of the 21 prior arrests between all offenders only 7 were for violent crimes. The rest would have linked the perpetrator to a murder or rape by linking them upon arrest to a non-violent offense, including theft and drug offensesThis demonstrates the incredible power of a DNA database to prevent and solve crime by requiring DNA collection upon arrest.

Other Emerging Policy Issues

Familial Searching60 Minutes April 1 A Not So Perfect Match

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/60minutes/main2600721.shtml

What is the status on Brazils effort to Establishing a forensic DNA Program?

Moving forward over timeSENASP proposal awaiting approval by Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Justice likely to submit to proposal similar to SENASPs 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 BrazilCreate a database law that maximizes the hit rateMake database a priorityInclude all suspects, not just convicted offendersIf privacy problems arise for including suspects, destroy suspect sample after profilingAvoid purging profiles from database Include juvenilesInclude all categories of incarcerationDo not take incremental stepsRetroactive 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 BrazilCollection StrategiesImplement Rape Victim DNA ProgramInstant resultsGenerates strong public supportNational 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 BrazilFunding strategiesOffender/suspect database: Collect now - analyze laterOffender/suspect database: Offender pays for inclusion costsCasework: England and Wales model - Local government pays for caseworkCasework: United States - Large grant program from federal government

Lessons Learned for BrazilDevelop Strong Support NetworkMake sure agency controlling databases are actively supportiveEducate local law enforcement and prosecutor leadersGain victim group supportAddress civil rights concernsEducate relevant legislators and legislative staff

Questions ?

www.dnaresource.comtims@gth-gov.com

*

As recently as last month this commitment was renewed by the passage of the reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act.

Why are States and countries around the world continuing to expand the scope of their legislation? A quick look a recent study conducted by the city of Chicago clearly shows that many career criminals are recidivists and that their crimes become more violent over time.

The City of Chicago studied the criminal histories of eight convicted offenders. They were able to show that if any of the offenders had been required to provide DNA upon arrest, a number of heinous crimes could have been prevented. In fact, if all of the offenders had been required to submit a DNA sample at the same time as they were fingerprinted during their first arrest, 60 crimes, including 30 rapes and 22 murders would have been prevented.

Furthermore, the study revealed that of the 21 prior arrests between all offenders only 7 were for violent crimes. The rest would have linked the perpetrator to a murder or rape by linking them upon arrest to a non-violent offense, including theft and drug offensesThis demonstrates the incredible power of a DNA database to prevent and solve crime by requiring DNA collection upon arrest.