UIndys molecular anthropology laboratory conducted the research.(Photo: Photo provided by the University of Indianapolis) <\/p>\n
If an individual is arrested, and DNA is collected but prosecutors do not immediately file charges how long should the government be able to hold on to the DNA sample? <\/p>\n
Is 30 days enough time? What about six months? <\/p>\n
Or should the government be allowed to keep a person's DNA for a year, even if he or she has not been formally charged with a crime? <\/p>\n
Lawmakers on Wednesday debated the question during a committee hearing for a bill that would allow police to take a DNA sample upon arrest, broadening the scope of the state's DNA database, which currently only takes samples from those who have been convicted of a crime. <\/p>\n
Ben Davis killing:DNA, cellphone link man to student's death <\/p>\n
DNA tests:Muncie man walks free after rape conviction set aside <\/p>\n
First love:After wife's death 'Butler helped my fill that void' <\/p>\n
Versions of the bill have passed both the House and the Senate, signaling support for the measure, which proponents say will help police solve crimes and could exonerate innocent people. But the proposal has also generated vigorous debate about privacy rights and the potential for government overreach. <\/p>\n
Now, the bills are back in committee hearings as lawmakers hash out details about how the measure would actually work, if enacted. <\/p>\n
During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, testimony centered on two questions: <\/p>\n
Lawmakers agree that people should be able to remove the DNA sample from the system if they are arrested and never charged, but the time frame is up for debate. <\/p>\n
In the version ofHouse Bill 1577that passed the Indiana House of Representatives, a person could remove a DNA sample from the system if no charge was filed within 30 days. But as lawmakers are working to align that bill with the similarSenate Bill 322, which passed the Senate, they altered the provision so that prosecutors now have a full year to file charges before an individual can remove a DNA sample from the system. <\/p>\n
\"When someone is arrested on a felony warrant, it may take some time to get charges filed,\" said Chris Naylor, assistant executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, adding that 30 days may be too short for more complex cases. <\/p>\n
But the provision received pushback from some lawmakers, who saw it as a violation of privacy for someone who is not charged with a crime. <\/p>\n
\"If I was a prosecutor I could overcharge everybody because I would get everyones DNA,\" said Sen. Michael Young, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. <\/p>\n
Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council,offered something of a compromise, suggesting that people should be able to remove a DNA sample if no charges are filed within 185 days. <\/p>\n
\"If a prosecutor hasn't decided after 185 days, it likely never will be filed,\" Landis said. <\/p>\n
Rep. Greg Steuerwald, who authored the House version of the bill, pointed out that the bill has been amended to contain safeguards to protect innocent people. The House adopted an amendment that says a judge must find probable cause for an arrest before a DNA sample can be entered into the system. <\/p>\n
The bills also say that a DNA sample can be removed if an individual is acquitted, if charges are dismissed and if a felony charge is bumped down to a misdemeanor. <\/p>\n
Lawmakers also debated about who should be responsible for removing the DNA sample, if an arrest doesn't lead to a conviction. As the bills read now, the person arrested must submit the request for approval by prosecutors.Steuerwald noted that the arrestee has the greatest incentive to pursue this. Under the bill, police must offer information about the removal process upon taking the sample. <\/p>\n
But some committee members suggested the state should bear the responsibility, so as not to put undue burden on someone who may have been wrongfully accused, particularly if the individual is indigent. <\/p>\n
\"For me, putting the burden on an innocent person, I don't see a public policy reason to do that,\" Sen. Greg Taylor said. <\/p>\n
The issue gained traction last year whenDNA from an Ohiodatabasethat includes arrestees helped solve boththeslaying of an elderly Zionsville manin November andattacks on two Indianapolis police stations. <\/p>\n
Upon a felony arrest, a person's DNA sample would be submitted to databases that would allow police across the country to compare it to DNA collected at crime scenes. <\/p>\n
Call Star reporter Madeline Buckley at (317) 444-6083. Follow her on Twitter:@Mabuckley88. <\/p>\n
Should police take a DNA sample when making arrests? <\/p>\n
Read or Share this story: http:\/\/indy.st\/2mQsdc0<\/a> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Read the rest here: UIndys molecular anthropology laboratory conducted the research.(Photo: Photo provided by the University of Indianapolis) If an individual is arrested, and DNA is collected but prosecutors do not immediately file charges how long should the government be able to hold on to the DNA sample? Is 30 days enough time Continue reading
\nHow long should the state keep your DNA? - Indianapolis Star<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"