Forensic DNA Policy A Global Perspective CIPAE Conference

Forensic DNA Policy A Global Perspective CIPAE Conference December 2, 2008 Presented by: Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs Tacoma, WA (253) 620 -6500 Washington, DC (202) 258 -2301 Seattle, WA (206) 676 -7500 Brasilia, Brazil Tim Schellberg tims@gth-gov. com

Gordon Thomas Honeywell Government Affairs Tacoma, Washington, DC

OFFENDER DNA DATABASES HOW DOES IT WORK? Convicted Offender Forensic Evidence

CODIS Architecture - Different Levels NDIS SDIS Change to Californi a Los Angeles Change to Texas LDIS San Francisco Dallas Houston

Offender DNA Databases 4 SOLVE MORE CRIME 4 PREVENT MORE CRIME 4 EXONERATE THE INNOCENT 4 COST / BENEFIT

Your Offender Database Controls the “Hit Rates” Estimated Hit Rates Based on United States and United Kingdom Data Sex offenders 5% Sex offenders & Violent offenders 10% Sex offenders, Violent offenders and Property crimes 20% All crimes, minus minor crimes 40% All crimes 50% All arrestees 60%

THE 5 STAGES OF FORENSIC DNA PROGRAMS Global Observations

Named suspect-to-crime scene evidence only – NO DATABASE

Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database Databases without offenders Suspects and crime scenes compared against crime scene databases (some suspect databases too)

Named suspect-to-crime scene evidence only – NO DATABASE Databases without offenders Offender Database Legislation The essential element: No database legislation means no significant casework testing

Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database Offender Database Legislation Unsolved Casework Demand • Increases as database grows – Higher Hit rates encourage more non-suspect demand.

Named suspect-to-crime scene casework only, no database Offender Database Legislation Unsolved Casework Demand Urgency (turnaround time)

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

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) 1996 - Most states have sex offender DNA database statutes 1999 - 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 2000 - Congress enacts the DNA Backlog Elimination Act (appropriates $140 million to states for DNA analysis)

U. S Time-Line (continued) 2005 - A total of 43 states pass have passed all crimes (minus minor crimes) legislation - President’s DNA Initiative of $1 Billion is passed and begins implementation - California implements comprehensive arrestee DNA testing law 2008 - - A push to arresting testing legislation – 14 states have passed law so far Immigration DNA testing to begin Victim groups increase visibility New privacy issues emerge, such as familial testing

United States Database Size – 3 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 samples – 47 states collect from all convicted offenders, except minor crimes – Remaining 3 states collect from all violent crimes and burglary – 14 states have laws to collect DNA from arrested offenders – Purging: Convicted offenders – No Arrested offenders - Some

United States Funding – States fund most of the costs – Federal government operates central database – Local governments pay very little – $1 Billion federal investment through “President’s DNA Initiative” Problems - Backlogs are still significant: Private labs vs. building sufficient public labs - Still looking for a shift in law enforcement collection habits - Turn around time lags far behind United Kingdom - Privacy concern with arrestee samples - Local governments generally don’t pay for testing

Offender Database Legislation 2008 - 47 States require DNA from all convicted felons 2008 - 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 Kingdom Database Size 4 4 4 One national database – 4. 5 offender (subject) samples Operated by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) Legislation requires permanent databasing of all people arrested Nearly 427, 000 Crime Scene samples – Average 60, 000 per year. Hit Rate is current 55% and expected to rise 4 See the United Kingdom’s annual report at http: //www. npia. police. uk/en/11403. htm Funding 4 Strong financial support from national government to operate FSS 4 Local governments also invest heavily in casework, by reimbursing FSS for casework Collection and casework 4 Aggressive crime scene casework 4 Adds between 1, 000 to 1, 500 profiles to the crime scene database each week 3 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 50 40 30 20 10 0 Burglary Drugs Assault Murder 1999 2000 2001 Sexual Offense

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

Europe Current Database Laws 4 All but a few countries have databases (link to slide) 4 Most have passed offender database legislation 4 Details http: //www. enfsi. eu/page. php? uid=98 4 Extensive purging required 4 Database size varies (link to slide) 4 Over 50% using CODIS software (link to slide) The Future of European Databases 4 Strong recognition that the future is suspect databases 4 European wide searches through the Prum Treaty 4 ENFSI DNA –Database Management Review and Recommendations http: //www. enfsi. eu/page. php? uid=98 4 Interpol DNA Gateway Database 4 Australia Crim. Trac

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 Countries All 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 4 Established and growing DNA databases (Other than US, UK and Europe): Australia New Zealand Canada South Africa Japan China Israel 4 Countries Pursuing Databases Chile India Uruguay Brazil Argentina Caribbean Nations Bosnia Singapore United Arab Emirates Columbia South Korea Malaysia Thailand Philippines Mexico Ü Countries pursuing databases

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

United State’s 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 12/19/2021 33

New Mexico New leader for advancing arrestee legislation: Jayann Sepich

: Drive to Arrestee Testing: Career criminals are recidivists and their crimes become more Chicago study of 8 convicted violent over time. offenders 60 preventable violent crimes, including 30 rapes and 22 8 murders offenders 60 unnecessary victims

Other Emerging Policy Issues

Familial Searching 60 Minutes – April 1 “ A Not So Perfect Match” http: //www. cbsnews. com/stories/2007/03/2 3/60 minutes/main 2600721. shtml

What is the status on Brazil’s effort to Establishing a forensic DNA Program?

Moving forward over time • SENASP proposal awaiting approval by Ministry of Justice • Ministry of Justice likely to submit to proposal similar to SENASP’s 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 Brazil 4 Create a database law that maximizes the “hit rate” – Make database a priority – Include all suspects, not just convicted offenders – If privacy problems arise for including suspects, destroy suspect sample after profiling – Avoid purging profiles from database – Include juveniles – Include all categories of incarceration – Do not take incremental steps – Retroactive 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 Brazil 4 Collection Strategies – Implement “Rape Victim DNA Program” • Instant results • Generates strong public support – National 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 Brazil 4 Funding strategies – Offender/suspect database: Collect now - analyze later – Offender/suspect database: Offender pays for inclusion costs – Casework: England Wales model - Local government pays for casework – Casework: United States Large grant program from federal government

Lessons Learned for Brazil 4 Develop Strong Support Network – Make sure agency controlling databases are actively supportive – Educate local law enforcement and prosecutor leaders – Gain victim group support – Address civil rights concerns – Educate relevant legislators and legislative staff

Questions ? www. dnaresource. com tims@gth-gov. com