On January 10, 2013, President Obama signed “Katie’s Law,” named for New Mexico college student Katie Sepich. The law provides grants to states to implement and expand laws authorizing the collection of DNA evidence from suspects arrested and charged with specified felonies. According to the DNA Saves Foundation, created by Sepich’s parents, twenty-six states already authorize collection at arrest. According to the Billings Gazette, the Wyoming Legislature just rejected the proposal. (A map on the Foundation website shows which states require testing on felony arrest.)
All states require DNA collection on conviction. The law does not affect DNA testing when required for investigating or prosecuting a specific case.
The pro: checking DNA on a suspect arrest may help determine whether he is a suspect in other crimes.
The con: automatic collection of DNA may infringe the rights of persons not yet convicted–who may in fact be innocent–and by expanding a government database, may expand the risk of future misuse or over-reaching.
According to the Las Cruces Sun-Times, Katie Sepich, a 22-year-old graduate student, was raped and murdered in 2003. At that time, New Mexico did not collect DNA until the suspect had been convicted. A man arrested on other charges in 2003 was ultimately convicted and tested in 2006; only then was his DNA connected to her. In other words, if DNA had been collected when he was arrested, he could have been charged in her case several years earlier.
Meanwhile, a Maryland man who pled guilty to a lesser charge — for which DNA samples at arrest were not authorized — challenged the constitutionality of that state’s law. The Supreme Court is hearing the case this week.
And in another development, the Missoulian reports that Montana may soon become the 47th state to require registered violent and sex offenders who move to the state from another to provide a DNA sample when they move into the state. Three other states — Colorado, Idaho, and Wisconsin — have yet to enact such a law. (All states require offenders who must register in another state to register when they move to a new state.)
Will the timing of a DNA test affect your story?
DNA doesn’t come into the things I write, nevertheless, I am facinated by all this science. 1890 crime scenes are the same as 2013 crime scenes and you can bet the readers would complain if I got it wrong. I have a few stories that involve finger pritnts and rifeling on bullets and bugs on bodies, but the detectives don’t see them the same way we do and they could not be used in court.
I’ve read some about the evolution of forensics in that time period (Stefanie Pintoff’s novels and nonfiction by Doug Starr and Deborah Blum) and it’s fascinating.
Leslie, I may be wrong, but I think 45+/- states have put Katie’s Law into effect. Colorado (my state) has not. This will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules. If the Supreme Court rules DNA samples taken at the time of arrest, what does that do to the states that have put it into effect? (Hope I have this right.)
Hmm. Not sure where you’re hearing 45 — news accounts today are saying 28 states plus the federal government. I wrote this piece a few weeks ago after Katie’s Law was signed and scheduled it to run today — only to discover that the Supremes are hearing the MD challenge today! Speculation is that if the laws are held unconstitutional — because they violate the 4th Am right to be free from warrantless search & seizure or other evidence of “particularized suspicion” — samples and records would have to be destroyed.
Here’s today’s NPR story http://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172886713/supreme-court-considers-if-warrantless-dna-swab-violates-constitution
Oh, good grief. Apologies. I’m thinking of Jessica’s Law, totally different subject and case.
Ah! That explains it — thanks!
Leslie, your blog is really helpful. I hope you’ll post the Supreme Court’s finding and arguments. It seems as though DNA sampling should at least require a warrant, and if samples are collected on suspicion and the defendant found innocent of the charge, laws should require that the DNA samples be immediately destroyed.
In addition to your blog or DorothyL post, I’ll be scanning news media for disposition of the case.
Thanks,
Nancy G. West
Thanks so much, Nancy! A ruling is likely to be a few months away. (And if you’d like to get blog updates in your email box, there’s an email subscription option on the blog.)
Apparently the ruling will be made in June, 2013. Thanks for this blog, Leslie, will be interest to read the decision.
A summary of arguments should be available later today at http://www.scotusblog.com/
Thanks for this information, Leslie! Your blog is so helpful. I am in the process of considering moving my mystery back in time somewhat so I don’t have to deal with “legal” eviscerations of the 4th amendment & everything else.
You’re welcome, Brenda — though setting a story in the past involves its own sticky wickets!
Thanks for the excellent comments today. Here’s Marsha Coyle of the National Law Journal explaining the case on the PBS Newshour. (Love Marsha!) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june13/scotus_02-26.html
Leslie, very interesting breakdown of the issue. I have a question. What is meant by “future misuse and over-reaching.” I’m trying to think how DNA info could be misused, or how law enforcement could over-reach.
Terry, some people fear that a government database intended for criminal investigation could be used for other reasons, like providing data for medical research, to identify persons involved in non-criminal activity, even to provide info for commercial reasons. That old slippery slope.