Everyone wants to do all we legally can to catch criminals, but a bill that would increase the number of suspects whose DNA can be collected by law enforcement at the time of arrest needs to clearly state that it will not allow people's DNA to be used in future, unconnected criminal cases.
Our laws state that before certain law enforcement procedures, such as DNA testing or search warrants, there must be probable cause. If there is a sufficient legal reason to get DNA, we trust law enforcement will gather the DNA. Why the need for a specific law? Frankly, we're not aware of law enforcement officials failing to convict criminals they have already arrested due to not having DNA evidence.
Sen. Stuart Adams, R-Layton, is sponsoring Senate Bill 277, that mandates that all Utah law enforcement agencies that book a person into jail for any violent crime immediately take a DNA sample of the arrested individual. If the suspect is convicted, he or she would have to pay $150 to cover the cost. The bill is moving its way through the Utah Legislature.
We share others' concerns that this DNA information might threaten the genetic privacy of the arrested person. Marina Lowe, of the American Civil Liberties Union, told legislators that "these sorts of bills have led to lawsuits in a lot of different states."
Also, State Sen. Ben McAdams, D-Salt Lake City, suggested that law enforcement officials might be tempted to use the DNA samples of previous arrests to later connect suspects to other crimes. That would clearly be an abuse that could result from SB277.
Adams claims that the bill protects against that kind of misuse. He said that the DNA can only be used to determine sex and identification. Also, says Adams, the DNA is only used if someone goes to trial. Finally, if the person is not guilty, the DNA must be destroyed, he adds.
McAdams says he's not sure the bill as written makes those claims. "It's very, very restrictive," he said.
Unless civil liberty concerns over SB277 are adequately answered, the bill should not become law, in our opinion.
Comments