DNA(Photo: Associated Press) <\/p>\n
Arguments swirled around a bill that would allow police to collectDNA samples from people arrested for felonies, but who had not yet been convicted.Then Senate President Pro TemDavid Long, R-Fort Wayne,stepped in to call off the vigorous debate. <\/p>\n
\"We've got a lot of work today,\" Long said, pressing the senators to vote on the motion to concur. <\/p>\n
It passed 36-13. Now, the bill goes to the desk of Gov. Eric Holcomb. <\/p>\n
But the fevered debate which only happened because the measure had to return to the Senate to concur on a minor House change indicates that the use of DNA, while a staple of police investigations for decades, evokes privacy concerns among some Hoosiers. <\/p>\n
Also happening in the legislature:Lawmakers push to revive domestic violence gun bill <\/p>\n
Will Holcomb sign abortion legislation? <\/p>\n
Revenue forecast adds money to state budget talks <\/p>\n
If signed into law by the governor, Senate Enrolled Act 322, authored by Sen. Erin Houchin, R-Salem,will broaden Indiana's DNA database, which supporters say will aid police in solving violent crimes such as rape, as well as clear those who may be innocent. <\/p>\n
Right now, the state collects DNA upon conviction of crime. But come the end of the year, the proposal would allow police to take a sample upon arrest, making Indiana the 31ststateto do so. <\/p>\n
As the bill traveled through the House and the Senate, lawmakers added a number of safeguards to protect innocent people from getting their DNA ensnared by the government through a false arrest. Thechanges came as opponents of the bill raised privacy concerns, predicting a Big Brother-like future of government intrusion oncitizens using their genetic material. <\/p>\n
More on DNA collection:Should police take a DNA sample when making arrests? <\/p>\n
Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis,suggested that a DNA database could be breached, and used to frame people for crimes they didn't commit. <\/p>\n
\"If somebody gets your DNA and puts it at a crime scene, you're in trouble,\" Taylor said. <\/p>\n
But supporters of the bill called such scenarios hyperbole, and argued that the practice in which DNA is taken with a cheek swab is similar to fingerprinting. The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in 2013 ruled that collecting DNA upon arrest is constitutionaland does not violate a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. <\/p>\n
Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield, said some of the arguments from opponents \"throw up hypotheticals that border on the silly.\" <\/p>\n
\"My fingerprints were taken when Itook the bar, and I didn't commit a crime,\" he said. <\/p>\n
Lawmakers have proposed similar bills in past years, all of which failed to gain traction. <\/p>\n
That changedlate last year when police closed two high-profile cases the slaying of an elderly man and attacks on two police stations because of a DNA sample taken on arrestin Ohio. <\/p>\n
Before he was accused of shooting and killing an 82-year-old Zionsville man and firing shots at two police stations, Damoine Wilcoxson was arrested for a felony in Indiana, but not convicted. He also was arrested in Ohio, where a DNA sample was taken and placed into a database for comparison to other cases. <\/p>\n
While investigating the two cases, police matched a DNA sample taken from a letter left at the scenes of the police station attacks to one in the Ohio database taken from Wilcoxson. Detectives then connected the slaying and the police station attacks with ballistic evidence. Police and prosecutors credited Ohio's expanded DNA database for solving the crimes. <\/p>\n
However, some lawmakers were reluctant to expand the DNA database too far. <\/p>\n
A similar bill authored by Rep. Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon,advanced in the House, and lawmakers worked together to add protections in the bills. For example, police can only take a DNA sample if a judge has found probable cause for an arrest, according to an amendment. Lawmakers also outlined a number of scenarios in which an individual can remove his or her DNA. <\/p>\n
An individual can remove a DNA sample from the database when: <\/p>\n
But it is the job of the suspect, not the government, to initiate the process for removal. This was a provision that some opponents took issue with, stating that removal should be automatic if an arrest does not stand. In past hearings, Steuerwald argued that the person charged would have the most incentive to follow up. <\/p>\n
The measure requires police to inform a suspect of the removal process when taking a DNA sample. Then, if the circumstances qualify, the individual would fill out a form to expunge the DNA from the system. <\/p>\n
Holcomb now has the option to sign or veto the bill, or allow it into law without his signature. Stephanie Wilson, a spokeswoman for the governor, said he is tracking all bills that head to his desk. <\/p>\n
\"He will consider carefully before making a decision,\" she said. <\/p>\n
Steuerwald said he is confident the governor will sign the bill. <\/p>\n
\"This is one of the greatest law enforcement tools we have done here this entire session,\" he said. <\/p>\n
Call IndyStar reporter Madeline Buckley at (317) 444-6083. Follow her on Twitter:@Mabuckley88. <\/p>\n
Read or Share this story: http:\/\/indy.st\/2pdF0HN<\/a> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Read the original here: DNA(Photo: Associated Press) Arguments swirled around a bill that would allow police to collectDNA samples from people arrested for felonies, but who had not yet been convicted.Then Senate President Pro TemDavid Long, R-Fort Wayne,stepped in to call off the vigorous debate. \"We've got a lot of work today,\" Long said, pressing the senators to vote on the motion to concur. It passed 36-13 Continue reading
\nDNA collection bill heads to governor's desk - Indianapolis Star<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"