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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT