DNA; adds certain crimes to list for which a sample must be taken upon arrest. (SB6)
Introduced By
Sen. Richard Stuart (R-Westmoreland)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✗ |
Passed Committee |
☐ |
Passed House |
✓ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
DNA sample upon arrest. Adds the following crimes to the list of crimes for which a DNA sample must be taken upon arrest for commission or attempted commission: sexual battery, peeping or spying into a dwelling, penetration of mouth of a child with lascivious intent, indecent exposure, and obscene sexual display. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Failed
History
| Date | Action |
|---|---|
| 12/03/2013 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 14100956D |
| 12/03/2013 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
| 01/15/2014 | Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
| 01/15/2014 | Committee substitute printed 14104042D-S1 |
| 01/17/2014 | Constitutional reading dispensed (38-Y 0-N) |
| 01/20/2014 | Read second time |
| 01/20/2014 | Reading of substitute waived |
| 01/20/2014 | Committee substitute agreed to 14104042D-S1 |
| 01/20/2014 | Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB6S1 |
| 01/21/2014 | Read third time and passed Senate (38-Y 0-N) |
| 01/22/2014 | Impact statement from DPB (SB6S1) |
| 01/23/2014 | Placed on Calendar |
| 01/23/2014 | Read first time |
| 01/23/2014 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
| 01/23/2014 | Impact statement from DPB (SB6S1) |
| 02/14/2014 | Assigned Courts sub: Criminal Law |
| 02/24/2014 | Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (10-Y 0-N) |
| 02/24/2014 | Subcommittee recommends referring to Committee on Appropriations |
| 02/26/2014 | Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
| 02/26/2014 | Committee substitute printed 14105309D-H1 |
| 02/26/2014 | Referred to Committee on Appropriations |
| 02/28/2014 | Assigned App. sub: Public Safety |
| 03/03/2014 | Subcommittee recommends laying on the table |
| 03/04/2014 | Left in Appropriations |
Comments
In June 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that taking DNA is the equivalent of taking fingerprints and photographs.
Today in Virginia DNA can already be taken upon arrest for charges of:
- Murder
- Breaking and Entering a House at Night to commit larceny, is guilty of burglary
- Breaking and Entering a House to commit larceny, assault and battery or other felony
- Breaking and Entering any building or vehicle to commit murder, rape, robbery or arson
- Breaking and entering dwelling house with intent to commit other misdemeanor
I'm betting SB6 will be expanded to even more crimes than currently proposed during the first Committee hearing or additional bills get filed this year or next year so that DNA gets taken in almost every crime charged/investigated in Virginia.
Back in 2011 Virginia approved the seizure of familial DNA even though most states refuse the practice due to privacy and fairness concerns.
Investigated but unfounded, related to someone suspected by authorities, charged with a crime or convicted of a crime your DNA will be logged by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science and maybe even sent to the Federal database and there isn't anything you can do about it you have no right to your own DNA in Virginia.
California v. Maryland DNA Collection Laws and what their court decisions could mean for expansion of DNA collection here in Virginia.
December 8, 2013: http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c9813900f5f14f6192919b33ef191003/CA--Cold-Hits-Lawsuit
From the article:
A federal appeals court appeared ready last year to strike down as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy a controversial California law requiring police to collect DNA samples from every person arrested in the state.
Then the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold Maryland's similar — but narrower — law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then ordered lawyers on both sides to refashion their legal arguments in light of the high court ruling.
On Monday, a specially convened 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit will hear oral arguments in San Francisco.
The ACLU argues that the law is unconstitutional because not all arrestees are charged with a crime. It argues that California's law is different from the Maryland law upheld by the Supreme Court because Maryland collects DNA only from those arrested for serious offenses.
"Unlike Maryland, California's DNA law includes not only individuals arrested for violent felonies but also people arrested for nonviolent offenses such as joyriding, simple drug possession, and shoplifting beer," ACLU Michael Risher wrote in a legal filing.
Risher also noted that Maryland officials automatically destroy DNA samples collected from arrestees who are not charged. Persons arrested in California but not charged must apply to the state for destruction of their DNA samples.
"These differences, however, are not constitutionally significant, and do not distinguish" between the Maryland and California laws, state deputy Attorney General Daniel Powell argued in court papers.