DNA Database Proposition Passes Amidst Protest 

Gene Watch v.18, n.1, Jan/Feb 2005 1feb2005

On November 2, 2004, California voted 62% to 38% in favor of a proposition that allows state law enforcement officials to collect and store DNA samples from persons arrested for a wide variety of crimes, including juvenile offenses, even if these per-sons are not ultimately charged with that crime. This DNA information would be added to the California Database and Data Bank Program, a program that is compatible with the nationwide Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). California already collects DNA samples from felons convicted of serious crimes; there would be no separation of their DNA information from persons wrongfully arrested and from persons convicted of minor offenses.

Proposition 69 will make many individuals' DNA available to law enforcement agencies across the country. The costs of obtaining, processing, and maintaining the DNA for this data-base is estimated at $100 million each year, and will ostensibly come from increased criminal penalties. However, it is unclear to what degree these penalties will have to be increased, as the crux of the proposition is that non-criminals' DNA will be stored as well. If a person is not ultimately convicted of the crime for which he or she was arrested, the DNA information will only be expunged from the database upon written request, though this request may be denied without appeal. Once a person convicted of a crime has had their DNA information added to the data-base, there is no limit as to how long it can be kept there, regardless of the initial severity of the crime for which they were accused.

While genetic evidence has exonerated wrongfully convicted persons, opponents of Proposition 69 were vocal about concerns over the overall accuracy of DNA-based convictions, coupled with the vast increase in the number of innocent people whose DNA will become government record.

Opponents of Proposition 69 also cited fears that the DNA information stored in such criminal databases could be sold or otherwise inappropriately used. This could lead to genetic discrimination in not only the criminal justice system, but in employment, medical treatment and insurance underwriting.