Legislature(2003 - 2004)

03/12/2003 01:04 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 49 - EXPAND DNA DATABASE                                                                                                   
Number 0608                                                                                                                     
CHAIR McGUIRE  announced that the  final order of  business would                                                               
be HOUSE BILL NO. 49, "An  Act relating to the DNA identification                                                               
registration system; and providing for an effective date."                                                                      
Number 0572                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON moved  to adopt  the proposed  committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  HB  49,  Version  23-LS0132\I,  Luckhaupt,                                                               
3/3/03, as the  work draft.  There being no  objection, Version I                                                               
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
Number 0523                                                                                                                     
JENNIFER  RUDINGER, Executive  Director,  Alaska Civil  Liberties                                                               
Union (AkCLU), informed  the committee that the  AkCLU opposes HB
49 and urges  the [legislature] to put an end  to the progressive                                                               
expansion  of  DNA  (deoxyribonucleic  acid)  collection  by  the                                                               
government.  She  pointed out that DNA collected  from one person                                                               
reveals  personal  information  about that  individual,  much  of                                                               
which has  nothing to do  with the  needs of law  enforcement, as                                                               
well  as  personal  information   about  the  individual's  blood                                                               
relatives.      Unlike   fingerprinting,   which   only   reveals                                                               
information  that can  be used  for identification  purposes, DNA                                                               
gives the  government control over  a great deal of  personal and                                                               
private information  about anyone  related to the  sample source.                                                               
Therefore, expansion  of governmental  power to collect  DNA from                                                               
its citizens should not be taken lightly.                                                                                       
MS. RUDINGER recalled the testimony  of Chris Beheim, Director of                                                               
the Scientific  Crime Detection Laboratory  ("Crime Lab")  in the                                                               
Department  of  Public Safety.    She  recalled that  Mr.  Beheim                                                               
pointed  out  that  DNA testing  is  becoming  increasingly  more                                                               
common  across the  nation.   At  the same  time, the  scientific                                                               
knowledge  regarding the  content of  DNA is  growing incredibly.                                                               
She  informed  the committee  that  in  1988,  the FBI  opened  a                                                               
national  database  that gathers  the  DNA  records from  all  50                                                               
states  and the  federal government  into the  centralized system                                                               
known  as the  Combined  DNA Index  System  (CODIS).   Initially,                                                               
these  DNA storehouses  were created  to house  information about                                                               
convicted  sex offenders,  who,  it was  argued, were  especially                                                               
prone to recidivism and typically  left DNA evidence at the crime                                                               
scene.   Therefore, there was the  promise at the time  that only                                                               
convicted  sex  offenders would  be  tested  and the  information                                                               
obtained  from  these tests  would  be  used by  law  enforcement                                                               
strictly for  identification purposes.   However, it's  often the                                                               
case  that  information  initially   collected  for  one  limited                                                               
purpose is  ultimately used  for many  other purposes,  which has                                                               
been the case with DNA testing.                                                                                                 
MS.  RUDINGER  pointed  out  that  in less  than  a  decade,  law                                                               
enforcement  officials   across  the   country  have   gone  from                                                               
advocating  for  collection  of   DNA  only  from  convicted  sex                                                               
offenders,  to wanting  it from  all violent  offenders, then  to                                                               
wanting it  from all  burglars, and  now to  wanting it  from all                                                               
persons, including juvenile offenders,  convicted of any [felony]                                                               
crime.  She pointed out that  in many states, the DNA samples are                                                               
maintained even  when the  conviction is  overturned.   She noted                                                               
that in Louisiana, DNA is  collected from everyone arrested for a                                                               
felony  crime.   She  informed  the  committee that  former  U.S.                                                               
Attorney General Janet Reno asked  the National Commission on the                                                               
Future of  DNA Evidence to  review the possibility of  taking DNA                                                               
from  arrestees across  the  country.   The  1998  New York  City                                                               
police  commissioner proposed  the same  idea, and  Rudy Giuliani                                                               
voiced his  support for  the aforementioned  proposal as  well as                                                               
for taking DNA samples from all babies at birth.                                                                                
Number 0215                                                                                                                     
MS. RUDINGER said:                                                                                                              
     The collection of  DNA samples and the  creation of DNA                                                                    
     databanks   have   legitimate    and   vital   medical,                                                                    
     scientific, and  forensic purposes; that can  hardly be                                                                    
     argued.  Research can lead  to treatment and even cures                                                                    
     for  many genetic  diseases.   DNA  can  prove that  an                                                                    
     individual was  at the scene of  a crime.  It  can also                                                                    
     prove the  innocence of a suspect,  preventing terrible                                                                    
     miscarriages  of justice.    DNA can  even  be used  to                                                                    
     correct  wrongful  convictions  based on  an  erroneous                                                                    
     identification,    although    law   enforcement    and                                                                    
     prosecutors  seem  decidedly  less  enthusiastic  about                                                                    
     this use.  But  as we look at the good  uses of DNA, it                                                                    
     is  equally clear  there  is  tremendous potential  for                                                                    
     abuse.  The  vast amount of information  to be gleaned,                                                                    
     the incredible  longevity of DNA samples,  and the ease                                                                    
     with  which DNA  databases can  be shared  and accessed                                                                    
     raise   grave  privacy,   equality,  and   due  process                                                                    
     Although DNA has been touted  as a high-tech equivalent                                                                    
     of   fingerprints,  this   comparison  is   dangerously                                                                    
     misleading.   Where fingerprints  can be used  only for                                                                    
     identification  purposes,   DNA  samples   can  provide                                                                    
     insight  into  [a]  breathtaking wealth  of  singularly                                                                    
     private  information:    information about  a  person's                                                                    
     ethnicity,  family relationships,  family history,  and                                                                    
     the  likelihood of  getting  ...  some 4,000  different                                                                    
     genetic  diseases  and  conditions.   This  information                                                                    
     belongs   to  the   individual,  not   the  government.                                                                    
     Further,  geneticists  are  constantly  increasing  the                                                                    
     database of  information that can be  gleaned from DNA.                                                                    
     Some  geneticists even  claim  that  there are  genetic                                                                    
     markers  for criminal  tendencies, sexual  orientation,                                                                    
     substance abuse.   The  possibilities are  endless, and                                                                    
     therefore the dangers are endless.                                                                                         
     Today the  growing law enforcement databases  raise the                                                                    
     immediate specter of  widespread discrimination.  Given                                                                    
     the   overtargeting   of    Alaska   Natives,   African                                                                    
     Americans,  Latinos, and  other  minorities within  the                                                                    
     criminal  justice  system  nationwide,  the  government                                                                    
     will have the disproportionate  power to track millions                                                                    
     of people  of color.   Now the  sponsors of HB  49 want                                                                    
     the  Alaska  legislature  to  expand  DNA  sampling  to                                                                    
     include   all   convicted  felons,   including   felony                                                                    
     shoplifting,   DWI,  perjury,   providing  alcohol   to                                                                    
     minors, forgery, writing  a bad check, as  well as some                                                                    
     misdemeanors.   This  will help  identify more  violent                                                                    
     criminals  in the  future,  proponents  say.   Claiming                                                                    
     that this  is a  minor and  necessary expansion  of the                                                                    
     present system,  proponents are [asking,  "Well, What's                                                                    
     the harm?"]   [The  previous bracketed portion  was not                                                                    
     on  tape,  but  was  taken  from  the  Gavel  to  Gavel                                                                    
     recording on the Internet.]                                                                                                
TAPE 03-20, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
MS. RUDINGER continued:                                                                                                         
     The  harm   is  this:    because   genetic  information                                                                    
     pertains  not  only  to the  individual  whose  DNA  is                                                                    
     sampled,  but  to  every  person  who  shares  in  that                                                                    
     person's  bloodline,   potential  threats   to  genetic                                                                    
     privacy posed by the collection  of the DNA extend well                                                                    
     beyond  the millions  of  Americans  whose samples  are                                                                    
     currently on  file.  Moreover, there  is no requirement                                                                    
     in  House Bill  49  or  in the  Alaska  Statutes or  in                                                                    
     federal law  that the DNA  sample - the drop  of blood,                                                                    
     the  drop  of  saliva  - ...  from  which  the  genetic                                                                    
     information is taken, [will] ever  be destroyed.  It is                                                                    
     precisely  the  availability  of these  samples  laying                                                                    
     around that  sparks ingenious ideas  about new  ways to                                                                    
     use  the information  contained  in  the samples,  thus                                                                    
     prompting  new legislation  authorizing ever-increasing                                                                    
     numbers of permissible uses for Alaskans' DNA.                                                                             
     At the  last hearing,  Representative Gara  [asked] the                                                                    
     AkCLU [to] take  a look at the  current restrictions in                                                                    
     law.  We've  looked at those; they appear  to limit the                                                                    
     use of the DNA, they appear  to make it clear that this                                                                    
     is not  a public  record, but, as  I just  pointed out,                                                                    
     there  are always  examples of  the government  finding                                                                    
     neat new ways  to use information once  it becomes able                                                                    
     to do  so.  For  example, social security  numbers were                                                                    
     initially intended  only for  use as  [a way  to] track                                                                    
     social security  payments, and the law  had very strict                                                                    
     controls  to   prevent  other  uses,  but   now  social                                                                    
     security numbers  are universal identifiers.   There is                                                                    
     a  long and  unfortunate  history  of government  using                                                                    
     personal information about its  citizen in ways that we                                                                    
     did not  consent to,  in ways that  go beyond  what the                                                                    
     law initially allowed for.                                                                                                 
Number 0270                                                                                                                     
MS. RUDINGER added:                                                                                                             
     Another example:   census  records created  for general                                                                    
     statistical  purposes were  used to  round up  innocent                                                                    
     Japanese  Americans and  put them  in internment  camps                                                                    
     during  World War  II.   Bottom line,  to sum  up, your                                                                    
     constituents throughout Alaska  are concerned about the                                                                    
     government's   ever  increasing   control  over   their                                                                    
     personal  information, and  their concerns  cross party                                                                    
     and ideological  lines.   The [AkCLU]  fields inquiries                                                                    
     virtually every week  regarding the government's demand                                                                    
     for  personal information:    social security  numbers,                                                                    
     background  checks,  DNA substance  information,  other                                                                    
     genetic information;  almost every week  Alaskans voice                                                                    
     concerns  that government  cannot  be  trusted to  keep                                                                    
     this information  confidential or  to limit its  use to                                                                    
     the initial purpose for which it was collected.                                                                            
     And we  agree.   Your constituents are  right.   So, in                                                                    
     conclusion, please  keep in mind [that]  this bill does                                                                    
     not only affect the person  from whom the DNA sample is                                                                    
     taken.    It  affects  their relatives,  who  are  law-                                                                    
     abiding  citizens  innocent  of   any  crime,  and  the                                                                    
     government's proposed justification  for collecting DNA                                                                    
     just doesn't  fly.   There needs to  be a  much tighter                                                                    
     fix between means and ends.                                                                                                
Number 0327                                                                                                                     
THERESA  WILLIAMS,  President,  Parents of  People  (POP),  after                                                               
explaining  that POP  advocates  for the  rights  of children  as                                                               
individuals and  people, relayed an  example of man who  had been                                                               
abusing his  15-year-old daughter for  two years.  That  man "has                                                               
plead out," and  at this time does not have  to register his DNA.                                                               
Under  HB 49,  he would  be required  to provide  a sample.   She                                                               
noted that  this man  has spent many  years working  around other                                                               
children.   She remarked  that there  are many  individuals, just                                                               
like this man,  who have plead down and currently  do not have to                                                               
provide a  DNA sample.   She characterized the  current situation                                                               
as a loophole that  needs to be corrected.  She  said that POP is                                                               
in support of HB 49 because  it will include all sex offenders in                                                               
the group that must provide a DNA sample.                                                                                       
Number 0550                                                                                                                     
LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic                                                                  
Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), said:                                                                                       
     We  appreciate  the  sponsors'  wanting  to  make  more                                                                    
     information  available  to  law  enforcement,  to  ease                                                                    
     their   investigations  in   being   able  to   capture                                                                    
     criminals.  ...  In  trying  to  figure  out  what  our                                                                    
     concern was, I  think what it came down to  was more of                                                                    
     practical nature  with ... the  possibility of  so many                                                                    
     more  samples coming  into  the Crime  Lab.   We  would                                                                    
     appreciate  some  discussion  on the  record  from  the                                                                    
     Crime Lab,  talking about the  ways in which  they keep                                                                    
     current with  processing the samples,  and the  ways in                                                                    
     which they keep current and  intend to continue to keep                                                                    
     current [with] processing rape exam kits.                                                                                  
     Our interest, of course, is  in catching sex offenders.                                                                    
     And when  somebody goes  through the  additional trauma                                                                    
     and invasion of a having  a rape exam kit completed, we                                                                    
     would want to know that  there is an emphasis placed on                                                                    
     processing those  kits and getting information  back to                                                                    
     law enforcement as quickly as  possible.  That there is                                                                    
     a commitment to making sure  that you're looking at sex                                                                    
     offender DNA first,  before you go to  the person who's                                                                    
     written the bad check, and  that they can keep current.                                                                    
     We supported  the original  DNA databank;  we supported                                                                    
     adding burglars into the DNA database ....                                                                                 
     So, I think  that's our problem:  We want  to hear that                                                                    
     there's a  mechanism in  place to  be able  [to] handle                                                                    
     these and  handle them expeditiously and  not have rape                                                                    
     exam kits  fall in  the cracks,  not have  sex offender                                                                    
     DNA not  done because they  have 50 other  samples that                                                                    
     came in  ahead of  that.  We  have supported  the Crime                                                                    
     Lab in  trying to  catch up  on their  backlog.   A few                                                                    
     years  ago,  for  two  years  in  a  row,  through  the                                                                    
     Violence  Against Woman  Act,  we  supplied funding  to                                                                    
     bring in  a person to help  catch the backlog up.   So,                                                                    
     our  experience is  that they  do  have backlogs,  that                                                                    
     they are slow,  and we're concerned with  the influx of                                                                    
     ... [additional samples].                                                                                                  
Number 0720                                                                                                                     
MS. HUGONIN continued:                                                                                                          
     And, then, if I might make  a quick comment on the work                                                                    
     draft, I noticed on page  3, [lines] 2-5, you're giving                                                                    
     the  department permission  to  collect, for  inclusion                                                                    
     into   the  registration   system,  samples   that  are                                                                    
     collected from  crime scene evidence.   And I  have not                                                                    
     had a  chance to talk  to the [ANDVSA] about  this, but                                                                    
     my  feeling  is  that  we   would  want  to  have  some                                                                    
     discussion about  exactly what that  means.  If  it's a                                                                    
     sex offense, and  it was committed against  me, I'm the                                                                    
     crime scene.   So you're going to be  collecting my DNA                                                                    
     evidence,  and  I  don't  know  how  we  feel  about  a                                                                    
     victim's DNA being  adding into the registry.   I would                                                                    
     think we would have a problem  with that.  So I realize                                                                    
     that that was not part  of the original bill, and would                                                                    
     appreciate  some discussion  on  that,  and maybe  some                                                                    
     consideration of  either better  defining it  or taking                                                                    
     it  out.  ... So,  thank  you  for the  opportunity  to                                                                    
     testify; we  appreciate the  sponsor's intent  and want                                                                    
     to do what we can to help  make it work, but we do have                                                                    
     those practical concerns.                                                                                                  
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked:  "Very good  point, and we will have that                                                               
discussion.  I'm  going to have [staff] do an  amendment on that,                                                               
that we can  discuss, regarding the victim's DNA.   I don't think                                                               
that's the intent, but we should make it clear."                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA said  he  would like  to  echo one  concern,                                                               
which  he acknowledged  might  be dealt  with  via a  forthcoming                                                               
amendment.  He elaborated on his concern:                                                                                       
     Nationwide,  law  enforcement   agencies  collect  rape                                                                    
     kits, the rape kits they  collect are from victims of a                                                                    
     traumatic  crime, and  the rape  kits require  that the                                                                    
     victim then undergo a pretty  intrusive process to help                                                                    
     law  enforcement agencies  ... maybe  track the  person                                                                    
     who committed the rape.   It's an intrusive process ...                                                                    
     but, nationwide,  ... law  enforcement agencies  are up                                                                    
     to a year behind on processing  these rape kits.  And I                                                                    
     guess  I'm sympathetic  to the  proposal  that we  make                                                                    
     sure that by adopting this  law, we don't push back our                                                                    
     time lag any further on processing rape kits.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  opined that  at some point,  the legislature                                                               
should do what it can to  make sure that law enforcement agencies                                                               
get caught up with its rape-kit  processing.  "It's a huge burden                                                               
we  put [victims]  through, and  the benefits  should follow  the                                                               
burden pretty quickly," he added.                                                                                               
MS. HUGONIN said  that the ANDVSA also  appreciates the inclusion                                                               
of  misdemeanor  crimes   against  a  person.     Stalking  is  a                                                               
misdemeanor crime,  and that seems  to be pretty  closely aligned                                                               
to sexual assault;  if people are committed  to stalking someone,                                                               
they don't have a good end  in mind.  Therefore, as the committee                                                               
discusses which crimes to include  and which crimes to leave out,                                                               
she asked that  it remember that crimes against a  person, if not                                                               
limited to felonies, include stalkers.                                                                                          
Number 0961                                                                                                                     
ANNE  CARPENETI,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section-Juneau,  Criminal  Division,  Department  of  Law  (DOL),                                                               
offered to explain  the changes in Version I.   She said that the                                                               
first  difference   is  that   Version  I   includes  legislative                                                               
findings.   The second difference  is that Version I  expands the                                                               
crime of violating  an order to submit to DNA  testing to include                                                               
the crime of  failing to give a  sample if one is  required to do                                                               
so because  he/she is registered  as a  sex offender.   She noted                                                               
that this  language can be found  of page 2, line  12, of Version                                                               
I.   Also,  the crime  of  violating an  order to  submit to  DNA                                                               
testing has been  raised from a class A misdemeanor  to a class C                                                               
felony.   Ms. Carpeneti also  noted that the original  version of                                                               
HB 49 clarified  that it also included a  juvenile adjudicated as                                                               
delinquent for  an act that  would have required DNA  testing had                                                               
the individual been an adult.                                                                                                   
MS. CARPENETI  relayed that Version  I also proposes making  it a                                                               
class C  felony to knowingly,  without authorization,  possess or                                                               
allow another  person to possess  a tissue  sample or a  blood or                                                               
oral sample that is collected and stored at the Crime Lab.                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON  suggested that  the latter  should allay                                                               
the concerns  of the  AkCLU with regard  to the  possibility that                                                               
DNA samples will be abused.                                                                                                     
MS.  CARPENETI  confirmed that  this  new  crime is  intended  to                                                               
address the  possibility of such abuse.   The Crime Lab  tests 14                                                               
loci on  the DNA strand  that addresses identification,  and this                                                               
testing provides what  is known as a DNA fingerprint.   The other                                                               
material is  saved because,  if there  is a hit  or a  match, the                                                               
Crime Lab wants to be able to go  back and confirm it.  It is the                                                               
keeping  of these  samples that  raises concerns,  but Version  I                                                               
would make  it a class C  felony to misuse the  samples stored at                                                               
the Crime Lab.  She turned to  [Section 5] of Version I and noted                                                               
that it specifies  what can be included in the  databank.  New to                                                               
the list  is the inclusion  of DNA samples from  those committing                                                               
misdemeanor  crimes against  a person,  such as  stalking, fourth                                                               
degree assault, and  reckless endangerment.  This  list will also                                                               
include  samples  from  volunteers  such as  those  with  missing                                                               
relatives, and samples taken from  crime scene evidence, and from                                                               
unidentified bodies or body parts.                                                                                              
MS.  CARPENETI assured  members  that in  drafting the  provision                                                               
that  allows  for  the  inclusion of  samples  from  crime  scene                                                               
evidence, the  intent was  that a  crime scene  would be  a place                                                               
rather  than  a person.    She  remarked  that  if there  is  any                                                               
confusion on that  point, it should be  clarified with additional                                                               
language, since there is no  intention to include a victim's DNA.                                                               
She also noted  that Version I specifies that  tissue samples can                                                               
be included  in the database;  sometimes when  collecting samples                                                               
from body  parts, for  example, tissue samples  have to  be taken                                                               
rather  than blood  or oral  samples.   Version I  also specifies                                                               
that samples  can be taken from  those who are currently  in jail                                                               
or a  juvenile facility for  the crimes  listed in the  bill, and                                                               
from those who  are on active probation or parole  for those same                                                               
crimes, as well as from those  who are on interstate probation or                                                               
parole for those same crimes.   In conclusion, she confirmed that                                                               
Version I includes many of the DOL's suggestions.                                                                               
CHAIR McGUIRE announced,  at 3:07 p.m., that  the committee would                                                               
recess to a call of the chair.                                                                                                  
Number 1346                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  McGUIRE called  the meeting  back  to order  at 4:45  p.m.                                                               
Present  were Representatives  McGuire, Anderson,  Samuels, Gara,                                                               
Gruenberg, Holm, and Coghill.                                                                                                   
Number 1425                                                                                                                     
CHRIS  BEHEIM, Director,  Scientific  Crime Detection  Laboratory                                                               
("Crime  Lab"), Department  of  Public  Safety (DPS),  addressing                                                               
questions  brought  up  earlier,  said  that  expanding  the  DNA                                                               
database  will  have  no  effect  on the  Crime  Lab  because  it                                                               
currently  uses federal  grant money  to outsource  all convicted                                                               
offender samples.  He said  that he anticipates that this federal                                                               
grant money  will be  available in the  future for  this purpose.                                                               
With  regard  to Ms.  Hugonin's  concern  regarding victims'  DNA                                                               
profiles, he said  that entering a victim's DNA  profile into the                                                               
system is strictly prohibited by  the National DNA Index System's                                                               
(NDIS's)  guidelines,   as  is  the  inclusion   of  "elimination                                                               
samples" that are  tested during the course  of an investigation.                                                               
He concluded by saying, "Those are two non-issues."                                                                             
Number 1516                                                                                                                     
JUANITA HENSLEY,  Special Assistant, Office of  the Commissioner,                                                               
Department  of Public  Safety  (DPS), relayed  that  the DPS  has                                                               
placed a  priority on sexual-assault-kit DNA  sampling, and feels                                                               
very strongly about that issue.   The commissioner, she added, is                                                               
very committed  to domestic violence  and sexual  assault issues.                                                               
Even though  DNA samples  for convicted  offenders are  sent out,                                                               
she  explained, the  DPS has  a technician  and criminologist  on                                                               
staff at  the Crime Lab that  handle all of the  rape kits coming                                                               
into the  department.  "So,  we are  working on making  sure that                                                               
... any  backlog that's there is  caught up, and that  it doesn't                                                               
have a backlog," she added.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  asked  for  an estimate  of  the  time  lag                                                               
between when  a rape kit  is completed  and when its  results are                                                               
MR.  BEHEIM  replied  that  there   are  many  factors  involved,                                                               
depending on the nature of the case  and its urgency.  It takes a                                                               
while to screen  the case; if there are a  lot of clothing items,                                                               
for example,  it can take several  days just to go  through those                                                               
items.  The DNA typing generally takes about three weeks.                                                                       
CHAIR McGUIRE closed public testimony on HB 49.                                                                                 
Number 1677                                                                                                                     
The committee  began discussion of Conceptual  Amendment 1, which                                                               
read [original punctuation provided but formatting changed]:                                                                    
     Page 2, lines 20 and 22:                                                                                                   
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
       "tissue sample collected for inclusion in the DNA                                                                        
     identification registration system.                                                                                        
          (b)   In   this    section   "DNA   identification                                                                    
     registration  system" means  the deoxyribonucleic  acid                                                                    
     identification  registration  system established  under                                                                    
     AS 44.41.035.                                                                                                              
          (c) Unlawful use of DNA samples is a class C                                                                          
     Page 4, line 3:                                                                                                            
          Delete "subsection" and insert "subsections"                                                                          
     Page 4, after line 7:                                                                                                      
          Insert the following:                                                                                                 
          "(m) The Department of Public Safety may not                                                                          
     include in the DNA  registration system a blood sample,                                                                    
     oral  sample,  or tissue  sample  of  the victim  of  a                                                                    
     crime, unless  that person would otherwise  be included                                                                    
     under (b)(1)-(b)(5) of this section."                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG reported  that during  the recess,  Ms.                                                               
Carpeneti had  brought up  a technical  point.   He asked  her to                                                               
speak on that issue.                                                                                                            
MS. CARPENETI explained  that she'd noticed what  she believes to                                                               
be  a typographical  error in  Version I,  which she'd  discussed                                                               
with  [the  committee aide].    She  indicated she'd  drafted  an                                                               
amendment  [which   became  the   first  portion   of  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1, relating to page 2, lines 20-22].                                                                                  
CHAIR  McGUIRE,   addressing  the  last  portion   of  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1, explained that she  and Representative Samuels had a                                                               
concern regarding  victims.  She  offered her  understanding that                                                               
Ms.  Carpeneti had  worked with  [Vanessa Tondini,  the committee                                                               
aide]  during  the recess  and  had  come  up with  the  language                                                               
relating to page 4, line 3, and page 4, after line 7.                                                                           
MS. CARPENETI  said the amendment to  page 4 [line 3]  just makes                                                               
"subsections"  plural.   Reporting  that  she'd  spoken with  Ms.                                                               
Hugonin about the  provision [proposed on page 4,  after line 7],                                                               
who thought  it was okay, she  noted that Mr. Beheim  had said it                                                               
is a nonissue; she therefore questioned its necessity.                                                                          
CHAIR  McGUIRE said  she'd  rather  keep it  in  just  to be  100                                                               
percent clear  about the  intent.   She stated,  "We do  not want                                                               
tissue,  blood, oral  sample,  and so  on from  the  victim of  a                                                               
crime; we don't  want them to have to go  through another process                                                               
on top of all ... they've been through before."                                                                                 
Number 1784                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  McGUIRE  [moved to  adopt]  Conceptual  Amendment 1  [text                                                               
provided  previously].    She clarified  that  the  intent  [with                                                               
regard  to the  insertion on  page  4, after  line 7]  is to  not                                                               
include the victim's DNA in the database.                                                                                       
MS.  CARPENETI,  after noting  that  she'd  typed the  amendment,                                                               
suggested  there should  be a  hyphen on  the first  line, rather                                                               
than "and".  Thus it would read "20-22".                                                                                        
CHAIR McGUIRE  acknowledged that  as a  friendly amendment.   [It                                                               
was treated as adopted.]                                                                                                        
Number 1833                                                                                                                     
CHAIR McGUIRE asked  whether there was any  objection to adopting                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 1  [as amended].  There  being no objection,                                                               
it was so ordered.                                                                                                              
Number 1860                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA moved  to  adopt  [Conceptual] Amendment  2,                                                               
which  read [original  punctuation provided  but some  formatting                                                               
     page 3, line 19, insert a new section:                                                                                     
          Sec.?.  AS 44.41.035(f) is amended to read:                                                                           
       (f) The DNA identification registration system is                                                                        
         confidential, is not a public record under AS                                                                          
     40.25.110-40.25.140, and may be used only for                                                                              
           (1) providing DNA or other blood grouping                                                                            
     tests for identification analysis;                                                                                         
             (2) law enforcement purposes including                                                                             
     criminal investigations and prosecutions;                                                                                  
          (3) exoneration of the wrongfully convicted;                                                                        
               (4) statistical blind analysis; or                                                                             
There being no objection, [Conceptual] Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                 
The committee took an at-ease from 4:54 p.m. to 4:59 p.m.                                                                       
Number 1929                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  moved to rescind  the committee's  action in                                                               
adopting [Conceptual] Amendment 2.                                                                                              
CHAIR  McGUIRE asked  whether  there was  any  objection.   There                                                               
being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                          
Number 1938                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GARA moved to adopt  a new Conceptual Amendment 2,                                                               
which  would  [read  like Conceptual  Amendment  2]  except  that                                                               
"wrongfully  convicted"  would  be  replaced  by  "innocent"  [in                                                               
paragraph (3)].                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  explained that  Ms. Carpeneti  had suggested                                                               
using the  phrase "exoneration  of the  innocent" to  ensure that                                                               
exoneration remains  a purpose of this  Act.  He added,  "We will                                                               
want to exonerate people who  haven't maybe yet [been] convicted;                                                               
the point is to exonerate innocent people."                                                                                     
CHAIR McGUIRE asked  whether there was any  objection to adoption                                                               
of  new  Conceptual  Amendment  2.   There  being  no  objection,                                                               
Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                             
Number 1995                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  moved  to  adopt Amendment  3,  which  read                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
     page 1, line 14, following "repeat offenders,":                                                                            
          Insert "the exoneration of innocent persons,"                                                                         
There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from 5:02 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.                                                                       
Number 2009                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  moved to  adopt new Amendment  4 [which                                                               
had  begun  as  a   document  labeled  23-LS0132\I.3,  Luckhaupt,                                                               
3/7/03, but which  had been crossed through in  places, with some                                                               
handwritten words  inserted, before the  copies were made].   New                                                               
Amendment 4, with the handwritten changes, read:                                                                                
     Page 1, line 6:                                                                                                            
          Delete "FINDINGS."                                                                                                    
          Insert "FINDINGS AND INTENT. (a)"                                                                                     
     Page 1, line 12, following "offenders;":                                                                                   
          Delete "and"                                                                                                          
     Page 2, line 1, following "remains":                                                                                       
          Insert "; and                                                                                                         
               (4)  the federal government is paying most                                                                       
      of the costs of the DNA identification registration                                                                       
     system and  will reimburse  the state  for most  of the                                                                    
     costs of the DNA identification registration system.                                                                       
          (b)  The legislature may reexamine the DNA                                                                            
     identification  registration system  and its  expansion                                                                    
     by  this Act  if the  federal government  eliminates or                                                                    
     reduces the level of funding it provides."                                                                                 
     Page 4, following line 24:                                                                                                 
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
        "*  Sec. 13.   The  uncodified law  of the  State of                                                                  
     Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:                                                                       
          INSTRUCTION TO COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY.                                                                         
     The  commissioner of  public  safety  shall notify  the                                                                    
     president of  the senate and  the speaker of  the house                                                                    
     of representatives if, at any  time after the effective                                                                    
     date  of sec.  1 of  this Act,  the federal  government                                                                    
     fails  to [sic]  the  costs of  the DNA  identification                                                                    
     registration system."                                                                                                      
     Renumber the bill sections accordingly.                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG pointed  out  that the  word "pay"  had                                                               
been  eliminated [in  the second  to last  line of  the amendment                                                               
before  the renumbering],  and that  it  should read  "government                                                               
fails  to  pay  the  costs  of the  DNA  identification".    [The                                                               
addition of "pay" was treated as adopted.]                                                                                      
Number 2087                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  McGUIRE  objected  [to new  Amendment  4]  for  discussion                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  explained  that  when  legislation  is                                                               
largely dependent  on federal funding,  he believes it is  a good                                                               
policy  for  the legislature  to  be  informed when  the  federal                                                               
funding  goes  away.    Therefore,   this  instructs  the  agency                                                               
administering  the  program to  provide  a  report notifying  the                                                               
presiding  officers  when  the   federal  government  reduces  or                                                               
eliminates  the  funding  mechanism.   He  noted  that  it  would                                                               
provide  in the  findings  that the  legislature  finds that  the                                                               
government is currently paying most  of the costs of the program,                                                               
and that  there is intent  stated that  the legislature may  - he                                                               
emphasized the word "may" -  reexamine the program if the federal                                                               
government  eliminates or  reduces the  level of  funding in  the                                                               
future.  He  told members, "I strongly support  the program; this                                                               
is just sort  of ... keeping track of federal  money so we're not                                                               
left with unfunded mandates that we know nothing about."                                                                        
Number 2149                                                                                                                     
CHAIR McGUIRE  withdrew her objection.   She asked  whether there                                                               
were any other objections.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM offered his  understanding that [the DPS] had                                                               
indicated [the federal  government] pays all of the  costs of DNA                                                               
identification  registration, with  no charge  whatsoever to  the                                                               
state.  He highlighted the zero fiscal note.                                                                                    
MS. HENSLEY explained that [the  DPS] has a federal grant through                                                               
NIJ [National  Institute of  Justice] that pays  for the  cost of                                                               
all the samples it sends out, as  well as a grant that pays for a                                                               
criminologist to do rape kits for sexual assaults.  She added:                                                                  
     President Bush, yesterday,  and [U.S.] Attorney General                                                                    
     Ashcroft just  announced that  they have  added another                                                                    
     232.6 million  in federal funding for  fiscal year '04,                                                                    
     and then  over the  next five  years adding  another $1                                                                    
     billion for DNA.  That's  going to be given [in] grants                                                                    
     to the states,  and it's strictly for  the DNA sampling                                                                    
     and things  of this nature.  ... And it's over  a five-                                                                    
     year  period.   So  we  fully  expect  all this  to  be                                                                    
     covered  over   a  five-year  period  with   the  large                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked:                                                                                                   
     We anticipate  that the funding  will be  available for                                                                    
     the  next few  years, but  at some  point all  of these                                                                    
     federal  mandates,   and  federal  funds   for  federal                                                                    
     mandates, tend to change.   And we just don't know five                                                                    
     years  from  now  whether  or  not  we'll  receive  the                                                                    
     federal funding.  And if that  happens, if ... all of a                                                                    
     sudden the federal funding disappears,  it will be good                                                                    
     for  the legislature  to  be alerted,  so  that ...  if                                                                    
     we're faced with  a decision of whether or  not to fund                                                                    
     the DNA  database or to  fund troopers on  the streets,                                                                    
     or to  fund both, we  can make  that decision.   So ...                                                                    
     the amendment  would just require that  [the] DPS alert                                                                    
     us, ...  just in case  we want  to take action  at that                                                                    
     point.   But ... it  does nothing  to take the  law off                                                                    
     the books  or anything like  that.  It just  deals with                                                                    
     the problem of always-disappearing federal money.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM, noting  that new  Amendment 4  says "paying                                                               
most of"  [in paragraph  (4)], offered  a friendly  amendment, to                                                               
say "all" if it is all [of the costs].                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected for discussion purposes.                                                                        
CHAIR  McGUIRE asked  Ms. Hensley  whether, indeed,  [the federal                                                               
government] pays all of the costs.                                                                                              
MS. HENSLEY answered:                                                                                                           
     It is only  all of those samples that we  have told the                                                                    
     federal government  we were going  to send to  the lab.                                                                    
     What  happens in  these circumstances  is,  we ...  get                                                                    
     this grant  given to  the state.   We tell  the federal                                                                    
     government how  many samples we're  going to  send out.                                                                    
     They tell  us what labs  ... they contracted with.   We                                                                    
     send  the sample  to the  lab.   Then the  lab actually                                                                    
     sends the bill  to the federal government  and they pay                                                                    
     it.   The state  is not  involved in  any of  the money                                                                    
     transfers  or  anything  like  that,  which  is  really                                                                    
     great, and it's kind  of unique under the circumstance.                                                                    
     When  the original  law was  passed  ... several  years                                                                    
     ago, we did have a large  fiscal note on it, but it was                                                                    
     start-up cost.   And we do have ongoing  cost, but [it]                                                                    
     pays  for the  sexual-assault  kits, ...  and we  still                                                                    
     have some  federal grants for that  as well.  So  we do                                                                    
     have  ongoing costs  to  the Crime  Lab  that's in  our                                                                    
     budget, and its ongoing cost,  but it also pays for the                                                                    
     criminologist to  do other duties, other  than just the                                                                    
     ... DNA stuff.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  again  expressed  concern  about  the  zero                                                               
fiscal  note because  the  amendment says  "most"  of the  costs,                                                               
which indicates to him that at  some point there will be a fiscal                                                               
note  that isn't  being  identified  at this  point.   He  asked,                                                               
"They'll pay for what you give  them, but we don't know what else                                                               
we  may have  with this  law that  will have  costs to  us?"   He                                                               
pointed out  that these aren't  all sexual offenses,  and offered                                                               
his  understanding that  if they  aren't  rape cases,  [evidence]                                                               
won't be sent to a lab  for rape purposes; rather, there would be                                                               
blood samples sent for DNA  [determination].  He said they aren't                                                               
the same, and asked whether that is correct.                                                                                    
Number 2347                                                                                                                     
MS. HENSLEY replied:                                                                                                            
     What we do is, in-house, take  the rape kits, and we do                                                                    
     the DNA  sampling in-house  on those  rape kits.   It's                                                                    
     all  of the  other  crimes  ... where  we  get the  DNA                                                                    
     sampling ...  from the convicted offender  already that                                                                    
     ... we contract out to the  labs.  This is not going to                                                                    
     be  any  additional  cost to  us  because  the  federal                                                                    
     government  has said,  "Give us  an  estimation on  the                                                                    
     early basis [of] how many  samples you're going to send                                                                    
     to  the lab."    And  if we  need  to  adjust that,  we                                                                    
     certainly can, based on the  number of cases that we're                                                                    
     going to be sending to the lab.                                                                                            
TAPE 03-20, SIDE B                                                                                                            
Number 2378                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  surmised,  then,  that  those  numbers  are                                                               
already in  the general budget for  rape kits.  He  said that the                                                               
word "most" indicates, to him,  that something else might come in                                                               
and have to be funded.   Therefore, he questioned why there isn't                                                               
a fiscal note that addresses it.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON asked  if it's  true that  currently the                                                               
DNA program that Mr. Beheim  directs is covered by federal grants                                                               
and will  be covered by federal  grants for the next  five years.                                                               
He  also  asked  if  it's true  that  Representative  Gruenberg's                                                               
amendment says "if or when there  is a reduction in the grant, so                                                               
that the state has  to pay for some of the  DNA program, then the                                                               
Department of  Public Safety  will notify  the legislature."   He                                                               
said that's how he reads it.                                                                                                    
MS.  HENSLEY  said that  is  correct.    Unless there  are  major                                                               
changes to this  legislation, Ms. Hensley didn't  expect there to                                                               
be any fiscal impact.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked,  "Aren't we going to  find this out                                                               
once you  look at the  budget anyway?"   He posed a  situation in                                                               
which eight  years from  now the commissioner  doesn't tell.   He                                                               
asked if the commissioner would be punished.                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  agreed that  it would  appear somewhere                                                               
in the budget.  He suggested  that there should be a mechanism by                                                               
which the  legislature is  notified that  the federal  funding is                                                               
going away.   Furthermore, it  should be  done in advance  of the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL pointed  out that  the aforementioned  is                                                               
done in  many cases with  repealers.   He noted his  objection to                                                               
saying that the federal government is  going to pay for a program                                                               
that  the legislature  is willfully  installing in  statute.   He                                                               
expressed  the need  to  take care  when doing  such.   He  said,                                                               
"We're really surrendering ourselves, I  think, at this point and                                                               
I don't know if that's wise."                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  clarified that  was not his  intent and                                                               
pointed  out that  the language  uses "may".   He  explained that                                                               
this is to ensure that  the federal government realizes that [the                                                               
state] isn't giving them a blank check.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  acknowledged that  the "may"  language is                                                               
utilized.    However, there  is  a  lot  of other  language  that                                                               
discusses  what [the  state] will  or  will not  do.   Therefore,                                                               
Representative  Coghill   begged  the  committee   to  reconsider                                                               
because he  felt that it's  not appropriate to place  in statute.                                                               
The  language could  be put  in a  letter of  intent or  the bill                                                               
could include  a sunset.   He relayed his  belief that this  is a                                                               
poor policy call.                                                                                                               
Number 2193                                                                                                                     
CHAIR McGUIRE  commented that perhaps this  conversation would be                                                               
more appropriate in  the House Finance Committee.   She mentioned                                                               
that she did  like having advance notice when  funding is running                                                               
out  for a  program  so that  the legislature  can  plan for  it.                                                               
However, she  said she  also understood  Representative Coghill's                                                               
concern  that there  may be  impacts  that aren't  known at  this                                                               
time.  Therefore, she asked  if Representative Gruenberg would be                                                               
willing to offer this through a House Finance Committee member.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  he   could.    However,  if  the                                                               
language of concern for Representative  Coghill is subsection (b)                                                               
of  new Amendment  4 as  amended, that  language can  be removed.                                                               
Representative   Gruenberg  related   his   preference,  if   the                                                               
committee is  so inclined, to  put in  the language and  point it                                                               
out  to the  House Finance  Committee  so that  it can  determine                                                               
whether to delete it or not.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  said  that would  probably  address  his                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE   COGHILL   moved   that  the   committee   delete                                                               
subsection (b)  from new Amendment  4 as amended.   [No objection                                                               
was  stated  and  the  amendment  to  new  Amendment  4  deleting                                                               
subsection (b) was treated as adopted.]                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON pointed out that  the new Amendment 4, as                                                               
amended, specifies in paragraph  (4) "that the federal government                                                               
is paying  most of  the costs"  while the  committee has  said on                                                               
record  that   the  federal  government   is  paying   the  cost.                                                               
Therefore,  he  asked if  the  words  "most  of" should  also  be                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  noted his acceptance  of Representative                                                               
Anderson's  suggestion.     [Therefore,  the  amendment   to  new                                                               
Amendment 4, as  amended, to delete from paragraph  (4) the words                                                               
"most of" was treated as adopted.]                                                                                              
CHAIR McGUIRE clarified, then, that  new Amendment 4, as amended,                                                               
would request that the federal  government tell us when the money                                                               
isn't available.                                                                                                                
Number 2078                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA asked  if  there is  any  objection to  also                                                               
notifying the Minority leaders of each body.                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  remarked   that  leadership  is  usually                                                               
trusted  to  handle  procedural   items  correctly,  adding  that                                                               
anything  that is  read across  House Floor  is available  to all                                                               
members.   Therefore, he indicated,  his inclination would  be to                                                               
leave the notification provision as is.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON noted his agreement.                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew his suggestion.                                                                                    
CHAIR McGUIRE  said that new  Amendment 4, as amended,  is before                                                               
the committee.   New Amendment  4, with the  handwritten changes,                                                               
as amended, read:                                                                                                               
     Page 1, line 6:                                                                                                            
          Delete "FINDINGS."                                                                                                    
          Insert "FINDINGS AND INTENT. (a)"                                                                                     
     Page 1, line 12, following "offenders;":                                                                                   
          Delete "and"                                                                                                          
     Page 2, line 1, following "remains":                                                                                       
          Insert "; and                                                                                                         
               (4)  the federal government is paying the                                                                        
     costs  of the  DNA  identification registration  system                                                                    
     and will reimburse  the state for most of  the costs of                                                                    
     the DNA identification registration system.                                                                                
     Page 4, following line 24:                                                                                                 
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                    
        "*  Sec. 13.   The  uncodified law  of the  State of                                                                  
     Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:                                                                       
          INSTRUCTION TO COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY.                                                                         
     The  commissioner of  public  safety  shall notify  the                                                                    
     president of  the senate and  the speaker of  the house                                                                    
     of representatives if, at any  time after the effective                                                                    
     date  of sec.  1 of  this Act,  the federal  government                                                                    
     fails  to  pay  the  costs of  the  DNA  identification                                                                    
     registration system."                                                                                                      
     Renumber the bill sections accordingly.                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS withdrew his objection.                                                                                  
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that there were no further objections to                                                                    
adopting new Amendment 4, as amended.  Therefore, Amendment 4,                                                                  
as amended, was adopted.                                                                                                        
Number 1973                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said:                                                                                                       
     I  move that  we adopt  Amendment  5.   That we  remove                                                                    
     under  Section 7,  line  21 and  22,  [AS] 11.41.230  -                                                                    
     Assault  in the  fourth degree,  11.41.330 -  Custodial                                                                    
     Interference   in  the   second  degree,   11.41.250  -                                                                    
     Reckless Endangerment, and 11.41.270  - Stalking in the                                                                    
     second degree.                                                                                                             
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM explained that he wanted to delete those                                                                    
statutes because of his concern that class A misdemeanors are                                                                   
treated as felonies.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS inquired as to how Amendment 5 would work                                                                
for the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Law.                                                                  
MS. CARPENETI clarified that the only folks from whom there will                                                                
be samples taken are those who are convicted.                                                                                   
MS.  HENSLEY relayed  that  the DPS  would  have difficulty  with                                                               
Amendment  5  because those  [statutes  deleted  by Amendment  5]                                                               
relate to crimes against a  person.  She relayed specific concern                                                               
with the deletion of AS 11.41.230 and AS 11.41.270.                                                                             
MS. HUGONIN  reminded members that  the committee  has previously                                                               
heard legislation that  allows for a civil remedy  for victims of                                                               
stalking because the  criminal statute is so  difficult to prove.                                                               
She emphasized that  it's difficult to even  have someone charged                                                               
with  stalking   in  the  second   degree  much  less   obtain  a                                                               
conviction.   Therefore, when [such  a conviction]  happens, it's                                                               
appropriate to have  the DNA sample taken.  Of  the four statutes                                                               
cited,  Ms. Hugonin  encouraged  the committee  to  leave in  [AS                                                               
11.41.270] stalking in the second  degree.  She explained that in                                                               
order for stalking  to rise to the first degree,  there has to be                                                               
some added elements  such as the stalking  occurring in violation                                                               
of the protective order, or against  a child under the age of 16.                                                               
Therefore,  stalkers  should be  included  if  the intent  is  to                                                               
capture DNA  from those persons  most likely to repeat  crimes or                                                               
commit sex offenses.                                                                                                            
Number 1743                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  said he  appreciated  and  agreed with  the                                                               
intent  behind  Amendment  5.   He  recalled  earlier  discussion                                                               
regarding the existence  of some crimes, that  if committed, have                                                               
no bearing on whether the  individual will commit a violent crime                                                               
in the future.  Therefore,  he understood Amendment 5 to [delete]                                                               
crimes that may  have no bearing on whether  someone would commit                                                               
a  violent crime  in the  future.   However, Representative  Gara                                                               
announced that  he didn't  support Amendment  5 because  the four                                                               
crimes  specified do  have  an aspect  of  violence or  attempted                                                               
violence.   He relayed his  belief that many people  convicted of                                                               
the  crimes [being  deleted by  Amendment  5] are  people with  a                                                               
propensity for violence.                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON  acknowledged that there is  the question                                                               
of how  many samples should be  taken and from which  crimes.  He                                                               
recalled  Mr. Beheim's  testimony  regarding  taking DNA  samples                                                               
from folks who  write bad checks.  The statistics  showed that 12                                                               
of the folks who wrote bad checks murdered someone.                                                                             
MR. BEHEIM  specified that those  statistics were  from Virginia.                                                               
The latest  statistics show that  82 percent  of the hits  in the                                                               
database would've been  missed if it had been  limited to violent                                                               
offenses.   In the  case of forgery,  statistics show  that those                                                               
who have committed forgery have  committed other crimes including                                                               
sexual assault and homicide.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON said  that  illustrates  that those  are                                                               
white-collar  crimes  that  don't   suggest  any  propensity  for                                                               
violence.  He indicated that he  was in a quandary with regard to                                                               
what to include or not to include.                                                                                              
Number 1571                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  withdrew Amendment  5.  However,  he offered                                                               
that if  there are  going to  be laws that  allow people  to plea                                                               
down such  that there is no  meaning [to the laws],  then perhaps                                                               
those laws  should be reviewed.   He emphasized that  the penalty                                                               
for a class A misdemeanor is  completely different than a class C                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  noted that  he supports  [DNA sampling]                                                               
extended  to  felonies.    He informed  the  committee  that  the                                                               
following  felonies   that  appear  to  be   nonviolent  include:                                                               
issuing  a bad  check  of  $500 or  more,  third degree  criminal                                                               
mischief - that's  $500 damage to property  - forgery, falsifying                                                               
business  records,   deceptive  business   practices,  defrauding                                                               
creditors,  perjury,  interference   with  official  proceedings,                                                               
misconduct by a juror, possession  of gambling records, and third                                                               
conviction for  DWI.  Representative Gruenberg  announced that he                                                               
supported the  legislation as written.   He expressed  his desire                                                               
for this committee  to discuss and address the  issues within its                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA agreed  with  Representative Gruenberg  that                                                               
they  should  make  sure  that  the  legislation  says  what  the                                                               
committee  wants  before passing  it  out.   Representative  Gara                                                               
noted his support of HB 49 as written.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  highlighted  that  Representative  Anderson                                                               
narrowed  the  definition  of  the crimes  that  will  result  in                                                               
someone being placed in the DNA  database to all crimes against a                                                               
person.   Therefore, Representative Gara  asked if the  list read                                                               
by Representative Gruenberg included crimes against a person.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied no.                                                                                            
MS.  CARPENETI  explained  that   the  legislation  includes  all                                                               
felonies in  Title 11 and  crimes against  a person.   The crimes                                                               
against  a person  that are  in Title  11 include  those read  by                                                               
Representative [Gruenberg], some misdemeanors, and sex offenses.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON  opined that  Mr.  Beheim  has made  the                                                               
case, with  the forgery  example, that  there is  a need  for DNA                                                               
sampling to be taken for all felonies.                                                                                          
Number 1334                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GARA reiterated his  support of the legislation as                                                               
written.    However, he  said  he  disagrees with  Representative                                                               
Anderson's analysis  of Mr. Beheim's statistics.   Representative                                                               
Gara said the statistics show that  there are a certain number of                                                               
people  who  committed  nonviolent  crimes  that  also  committed                                                               
violent  crimes.   He pointed  out  that Mr.  Beheim provided  no                                                               
statistical analysis  saying those  who commit  nonviolent crimes                                                               
have  any more  propensity  than anyone  else  to commit  violent                                                               
crimes  in the  future.   He  remarked that  the statistics  show                                                               
[only] that  if DNA from everyone  in the world were  taken, more                                                               
crimes would be solved.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL noted  that  he has  struggled with  this                                                               
legislation.       Representative    Coghill    turned   to    AS                                                               
44.41.035(b)(3), which  in part  says, "(3) a  minor 16  years of                                                               
age or older,  adjudicated as a delinquent for an  act that would                                                               
be a crime  against a person, a burglary, or  a felony attempt to                                                               
commit  burglary,  if  committed  by  an adult."    He  asked  if                                                               
adjudication is the same as conviction.                                                                                         
MS.  CARPENETI  answered that  in  the  juvenile justice  system,                                                               
adjudication is similar to a conviction.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  asked if that  would be consistent  for a                                                               
crime against a person.                                                                                                         
MS. CARPENETI replied yes.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  relayed his  belief that the  barrier has                                                               
to be high,  which he indicated was  achieved through conviction.                                                               
Representative Coghill said  that this is an  interesting path of                                                               
how to  identify people  without it  becoming problematic  for an                                                               
overzealous government.                                                                                                         
CHAIR McGUIRE said that she  didn't disagree, but she pointed out                                                               
that the legislature has the ability  to change this if there are                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM remarked that  this legislation carries a bit                                                               
more gravity  than most because  this issue involves  a database.                                                               
The database  doesn't have a  way in  which [it can  be] stopped,                                                               
similar   to  the   situation  with   social  security   numbers.                                                               
Therefore, he opined, personal protection should be upheld.                                                                     
Number 1071                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved  to report the proposed  CS for HB
49, Version  22-LS0132\I, Luckhaupt,  3/3/03, as amended,  out of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
zero fiscal  note.   There being no  objection, CSHB  49(JUD) was                                                               
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects