27 states collect DNA frrom suspects accused of misdemeanors

PA - A bill sponsored by state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi would allow police to collect DNA samples from suspects arrested for any felony or misdemeanor. Currently, state law only requires those convicted of serious felonies to give a DNA sample.

Pileggi's measure, already approved by the state Senate, was the subject of a hearing last week before the state House Judiciary Committee. Testimony was mixed. It's generally supported by law enforcement. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania contends that the bill may violate privacy provisions in the state constitution that are stricter than its federal counterpart. "It turns a fundamental concept of our criminal justice system -- 'innocent until proven guilty' -- on its head," ACLU lobbyist Andy Hoover told the committee.

The Pennsylvania State Police are skeptical as well. Already overburdened with a huge backlogs in DNA test requests, a top state trooper testified that the bill would require an additional 30 employees at a cost of $7 million a year and a new $20 million lab -- funding the bill does not provide.

Twenty-seven states already have similar laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court last summer with a 5-4 vote found them constitutional, saying taking a DNA sample is akin to taking booking photos and fingerprints. Interestingly, that 5-4 vote didn't follow the usual ideological lines. The author of the dissent was ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia. He was joined by liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Scalia wrote that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment's prohibition against "searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of a crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence "¦ is categorical and without exception." He has a point. Requiring a person convicted of no crime to surrender their genetic identity to the state certainly has the markings of a warrantless search.

The government already has almost limitless power to investigate crimes and obtain convictions. Does it really need more?

State Police Lt. Col. Scott Snyder, the agency's deputy commissioner of staff, had a suggestion for the Judiciary Committee. The state could retain its present post-conviction policy while expanding the DNA requirement to include misdemeanors considered "gateway" crimes, he testified.
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/opinion/ci_24543429/dna-collection-bill-erodes-privacy-undermines-presumption-innocence

Collecting DNA at arrest: Policies, practices and implications:
http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412831-Collecting-DNA-at-Arrest-Policies-Practices-and-Implications-Summary.pdf