HB 1403, the DNA on Arrest bill, was heard this morning in the House Finance committee. Twenty-three states and the federal government already have DNA on arrest laws. The newest version of the bill only pertains to certain felony arrests and uses “non-coded” DNA with only
13 genetic markers.

Here are the highlights from the committee meeting:

-Blackwell is first to speak and feels DNA is “similar to fingerprints.”
-Wainwright
asks about fiscal note and wants to know how the $3.5M costs will be covered. The staff say that in
this newer and more narrow version, costs will be less. However, there is no
updated fiscal note at this time.
-Holliman asks why there is an exemption to felony assaults (why is cyberstalking and stalking included, but not assaults???)
Staff says there is usually no DNA in assault cases.
-Hall
agrees with staff members saying that they had to narrow the crimes in order
to appease people and that you can still get their DNA after arrest.
-Luebke wants it to go to a study commission and calls it “taking from
the innocent.” He cites the Duke Institute for Genome Sciences and
Policy study that said the use of DNA is unknown and poorly documented.
-McCormick believes it is a “good bill and a timely bill.”
-Alexander is concerned about the misuse of the samples and also wants the study commission.
-Ross
says that J1 already spent 3 meetings on the bills, and it would be the
2nd narrowest law out of the other states with DNA on arrest.
-Chairman Gibson comments on the fiscal note saying that the new
version lessened the impact. There is no fiscal note yet, but costs have been
reduced.
-Tillis amendment adopted (technical amendment concerning effective date).
-Blust wants to know the standards for warrants for arrests, the number
of arrests that lead to convictions, and the number of people arrested
and required to give DNA under the bill criteria, but then convicted of
something else.
-Sarah Preston with ACLU, who is speaking today at Federalist Society luncheon here at the John Locke Foundation, is against the bill. They are
concerned with privacy and they want a warrant to be required for
obtaining DNA. She says it is against 4th amendment rights and might
lead to officials arresting just to get DNA.
-McCloud from the AG’s office had the opposite perspective and supports more
science in the system. He speaks about the automatic expungement requirement.
-Hall says expungement is essential.
-The ayes have it and the bill passes with fiscal note to come.

See further discussion on the same bill in Senate Judiciary I committee.