What an awful “What if?”
Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey says three murders and 18 sexual assaults, along with many more violent felonies, could have been easily prevented in Denver since 1989.
If a simple test to collect DNA samples from those arrested on felony charges had been in effect since that time, these tragic losses of life and dignity and personal well-being needn’t have occurred.
So we’re pleased with a new law in Colorado that will require law enforcement officers to collect DNA samples from felony suspects starting Sept. 30, 2010.
Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law Senate Bill 241 on Thursday. The law is also known as “Katie’s Law,” as it originated after the rape and murder of 22-year-old Katie Sepich in New Mexico in 2003. Katie’s mother, Jayann Sepich, has championed the legislation and now 21 states have laws requiring DNA samples taken from some suspects.
Additionally, the FBI recently announced it would take DNA samples from those it arrests.
All these samples are fed into a database to look for a possible match in other crimes. The data also could help exonerate those wrongly accused in other cases.
In Colorado, police arrest about 60,000 people a year on felony charges.
But lawmakers’ work is not yet done.
Colorado Bureau of Investigation spokesman Lance Clem tells us that the agency, which is charged with keeping up the state’s DNA database and the samples that populate it, isn’t equipped to implement a central component of the law.
“The law does need some fixing,” Clem says.
SB 241 requires the CBI to destroy samples from suspects who aren’t convicted or charged with felonies. But the law doesn’t create a mechanism for notifying the CBI when suspects aren’t convicted or charged.
Meanwhile, language in the bill sets forth that the CBI expunge samples if a year goes by and there’s no confirmation a felony charge had been filed. But other language says the destruction should take place within 90 days of a lack of a charge.
The new law does provide that defendants who are deemed innocent can ask the CBI to destroy their samples. In fact, an earlier version of the legislation put the onus solely on the defendant to start the expungement process.
We have argued for automatic expungement, because we don’t think it should be the defendant’s duty to ensure that the state destroys the sample.
A provision of SB 241 requires that a working group be formed to make suggestions for how the CBI is to implement the new law. The group’s recommendations must be filed by Jan. 12, 2010. That group’s members need to think clearly about the challenges the CBI now faces, and needs to ensure that the state can automatically trigger the expungement process so that the defendant doesn’t have to.
It would be a shame to see this potentially powerful investigative tool hampered by unclear marching orders.
