DNA sampling law goes into effect Oct. 1

Connecticut’s new DNA testing law is either a plot line from a Philip Dick novel or a novel way to combat crime.

Effective Oct. 1, anyone arrested for any of 39 serious felonies must provide a DNA sample before they are released from custody. Samples will only be taken from those with prior felony convictions and from those who have never before provided a DNA sample.

And while opponents contend the law tramples on civil liberties, supporters say it could solve cold cases, prevent future crimes and even exonerate the innocent.

“The use of DNA is a recognized tool in criminal investigations and convictions,” said Rep. Paul Davis a Republican representing Milford, Orange and West Haven in the 117th House District. “When it first became available it was often referred to as DNA finger printing because it identified a specific individual in a manner similar to finger prints.”

That doesn’t satisfy the Connecticut chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The organization said DNA and fingerprints aren’t at all similar. While both are unique, DNA contains some of the most private information about a person: their genetic code.

“This is private information about you that should not be made available to the police or the government,” said Andrew Schneider, ACLU-CT Executive Director in testimony last spring. “The risk that these samples might be accessed and used in controversial research (for example on human behaviors such as aggression substance addiction or criminal tendency) or in other sinister ways remains so long as those samples remain on file.”

Connecticut is the 25th state to mandate DNA samples, which will be entered into a federal DNA database. This is the first time the state will collect samples upon arrest. The state has collected DNA samples of those convicted of serious felonies for several years.

Connecticut’s new law resembles “Katie’s Law,” so named for Katie Sepich. The 22-year-old was raped, strangled to death, burned and left in a dumpsite near her New Mexico home in 2003. She fought her killer and had blood in skin under her nails.

Sepich’s killer was caught three years later after New Mexico’s DNA database matched his profile. He had been convicted of several other crimes. Katie’s mother Jayann Sepich testified that had New Mexico had DNA testing earlier, her daughter might still be alive.

A co-sponsor of the bill, state Rep. Brenda Kupchick a Republican representing Fairfield in the 132nd House District, acknowledged those concerns, saying that DNA bills are often controversial.

“It’s not like you’ll be pulled over for a DUI and have a sample taken,” Kupchick said. “This is for serious felonies. This is a good bill. It is giving law enforcement the tools to do their jobs. People will feel safer and feel something worthy is being done.”

The addition of the requirement that arrestees had previous felony convictions convinced some legislators who originally opposed the bill.

Also, under the law, the Department of Public Safety's Division of Scientific Services must expunge a DNA profile from the DNA data bank and the Connecticut State Police forensic laboratory must also purge all such information.

“This legislation also protects our rights by clarifying when the data must be purged and samples destroyed without having to be requested by an individual,” Davis said. “In general, I believe this new law protects both our safety and rights under the constitution. I was one of the many cosponsors of the bill.”

Aside from concerns the law violates the presumption of innocence, some said the law violates the Fourth Amendment, Article 1, Section 7, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

“I did not support the bill, either in the Appropriations Committee or on the House Floor,” said Rep. Elizabeth Ritter a Democrat representing Montville and Waterford in the 38th House District. “My concerns were, and still are, around privacy protections.  I spent a lot time discussing the bill with my colleagues who were advocates for it, but I was not able to put my concerns aside.  I will be following it as time goes on.”

Ritter and other legislators who oppose the bill also worry that private information about people who are accused of a crime, but not convicted of one, will be entered into police and federal databases.

Rep. Kim Rose, a Democrat representing Milford in the 118th House District disagrees.

“It’s not the intent of the law to use it in any other way. The benefits far outweighed any possibility of it being misused,” Rose said.

While the Connecticut Conference on Municipalities supported the bill, it was concerned it will become an unfunded mandate since towns and cities have to provide the DNA kits.

Also, the Department of Public Safety cautioned the General Assembly saying that it needs substantial funding to help move cases through the Connecticut Forensic Lab.

Based on the 2009 Connecticut Crime Index there were more than 9,175 criminal arrests for serious felonies in state. If that number stays the same, the lab would need five more examiner positions and clerical position to process and maintain DNA tests and files.

David Cameron, a political science professor at Yale University, testified on behalf of the bill.

He said it could help overturn wrongful convictions, as case of James Tillman who served 18 years on rape charges before DNA exonerated him. Cameron also said the law would help crack unsolved crimes in which there is biological evidence from an unknown source.

“No one seems to feel that taking finger prints when arrested is a privacy concern.  We would do the public and our investigative authorities a disservice if we did not permit use of modern scientific technology when investigating a crime or prosecuting a criminal,” Davis said.