Construction
Komatsu Equipment Co
Mechanic General
CORT
WAREHOUSE/DRIVER General
CORT
Warehouse Supervisor Education
Assessment Technology, Inc
Social Studies Content Writer Health Care
Rio Salado College
PA's/Online Instructors

A proposal to require that anyone arrested in Arizona submit a DNA sample for a database could theoretically help solve crimes faster, but the idea is impractical, costly and may infringe on the civil liberties of innocent citizens.

On Monday, a state Senate panel voted 5-1 to approve SB 1267, which would broadly expand Arizona's DNA database. Under current rules, a DNA sample is required only of people convicted of certain serious felonies, sex crimes and offenses involving deadly weapons, Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services reported in Tuesday's Star.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Chuck Gray, R-Mesa, who, as a former police officer, must know the value of DNA databases. One of Gray's arguments is that such a law would have helped authorities make an arrest in Phoenix's Baseline Killer case much sooner than they did. That suspect is charged in nine deaths and multiple assaults.

The logic behind expanding the DNA database is that many serious criminals have usually been arrested previously. If authorities can get DNA samples of repeat offenders in a database, criminals would presumably be identified and arrested more quickly in cases where there is DNA evidence at a crime scene.

The idea, though problematic, has some merit. We believe such a law could improve public safety and, in some cases, exonerate suspects whose DNA doesn't match the evidence found at crime scenes. Also, as DNA technology has improved over the years, it has become the modern-day fingerprint.

"It's a very powerful tool," said Susan Shankles, director of the Tucson Police Department Crime Lab. "The fingerprint remains the gold standard in identifying people. With DNA, it's still up to a jury to decide the value of the evidence."

However, expanding the DNA database is problematic for several reasons.

First, there are concerns over the loss of civil liberties. Simply being arrested does not mean a person has committed a crime, and many people who are arrested are never charged. Yet those people's DNA would become part of the database.

"When you get right down to it, it's an invasion of privacy," said Robert Hirsh, Pima County's chief assistant public defender. "Anytime you increase the database for DNA, I suppose there is a positive value in terms of public safety, but at what cost? It's a matter of drawing the line somewhere."

A more practical concern with expanding the DNA database is that the state doesn't have the resources to test an additional 75,000 people a year — the estimate given by Senate staff that examined the possible impact of the legislation.

Testing for so many more people could also further delay criminal cases that are already affected by a backlog at the Department of Public Safety's testing facilities, which would be in charge of the database.

Fischer reported in September 2004 that the DPS had a backlog of 80,000 DNA samples from convicted felons for its database.

Senate staff found that the bill would cost an additional $3.75 million per year for DNA tests, DPS would have to hire 15 new workers to handle the increased volume of samples, and the state would have to expand its testing facility at a cost of $8 million to $10 million.

Ed Heller, who runs the DPS crime lab in Tucson, said the agency tests about 30,000 DNA samples annually, so the proposed bill would more than triple the testing volume.

Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall said she likes the idea of expanding the DNA database, but not if it affects the legal system.

"I'd argue that the good that comes from this additional testing outweighs the civil liberties concerns," LaWall said. "The issue for me is if we have the funding and the ability to make this happen."

Expanding the DNA database holds the promise of improving public safety, but there should be more discussion about the civil liberties ramifications. Meanwhile, the measure seems impractical given that the state already has a backlog in processing DNA samples.

The state should concentrate first on increasing the testing capacity at DPS facilities and eliminating the backlog. Only then can it consider giving those facilities more work.