ILNews

Senate defeats DNA collection bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation that would require every person arrested after June 30 for certain crimes to submit a DNA sample failed to pass the Senate Tuesday.

Senators voted 16-34 against Senate Bill 245 that said anyone arrested for burglary, residential entry, a crime of violence or a sex offense must provide a DNA sample. Those samples would be expunged if the person was acquitted, the charges were dismissed, or no charges were filed after 30 days.

Also on Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in Maryland v. King, 12-207, in which the justices are asked to decide whether the Fourth Amendment allows states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes.

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. called it “the most important criminal procedure case this court has had in decades.”

Maryland began collecting DNA samples from arrestees charged with violent crimes and burglary in 2009. Alonzo Jay King is one of the people convicted from the process. His DNA, taken after he was arrested for assault, matched evidence in a 2003 sexual assault case. He was found guilty of first-degree rape and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

The Indiana Senate reconvenes Monday.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT