I try to do this on my own even when I go into debt for a year after returning from my CARAVAN TO CATCH A KILLER tours-(5 years 11 tours-> 68000 miles thru 46 States. $5.00 will pay for a gallon of gas--30 miles down the road. Help us find Brittany's killer. Please help us to be able to teach people about laws that put our loved ones at risk. WHAT IF THIS WAS YOUR DAUGHTER?

Sunday, February 19, 2012


Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Illinois, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont

*_BI is State’s Bureau of Investigation*
(please pardon the need for more editing/wanted this to be online when media stories occured)
1) Tennessee 2007 115 HITS TBI
2) New Mexico 2007 160 HITS
3) Maryland 2011 (Dec) 174 HITS
4) Virginia 2003 483HITS DFS
5) Ohio 2011 (July) 132 HITS OBI
*DNA taken the 1st time someone is arrested for a Felony Offense allows their DNA to be in a database. Then, if and only if, they leave DNA at their next crime scene, we can identify the guilty party relatively quickly.With violent offenders, this stops them at a low number of victims.
* DNA taken at conviction and then put into the DNA database is more about solving old crimes rather than stopping new ones. Violent offenders, when finally convicted, and their DNA is put into a national database are matched to multiple cold and unsolved crimes from 5-20 years in the past, where that DNA sat years without a match and the vioent offender kept on doing violence. THESE CRIMES COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF DNA HAD BEEN TAKEN THE FIRST TIME THEY WERE ARRESTED.


0012152 (case number)
06,09,11,12,10,10,22,24,9.3,10,08,09, (2 lines represent loci/factors specific to your DNA)
kzzz-The Analyst’s initials
The DNA profile is uploaded into CODIS, our national DNA database, without even a
name attached to it, only a case ID number, the lab’s name, and the analyst’s initials.

Regions of DNA that are used for forensic analysis are usually not genes, but rather are located in those parts of the chromosomes without known functions, or if part of a gene, not in the part that produces a detectable effect (MEANING IT DOES NOT INCLUDE DNA LOCI THAT WOULD SAY YOU ARE PRONE TO DISEASES OR MENTAL ILLNESS OR EVEN TALL, SHORT, ETC- This was a primary reason for this choice has been to protect individual privacy.)(This means that these sections of the DNA do not carry the genetic codes. When a match occurs between an offender and DNA evidence collected from a crime, the law enforcement agency is notified and then, with a judge’s order, another DNA sample is taken from the identified suspect to verify the match. It is a big piece of the puzzle that can set law enforcement on the right track.
Law enforcement now has to build their case and find other evidence and witnesses. They have to determine if the suspect was even in the area of the crime. The suspect is still innocent, until proven guilty. Only a jury determines “guilty” Keep in mind that less than 6 % of our population is ever arrested for a felony. A DNA profile only identifies the suspect. People can change their
names, their appearance, even their sex. Their DNA is unique and does not change.
**Criminals tend to be repeat offenders, but don’t always get convicted, having their DNA
at Arrest increases the chances of conviction. Each conviction prevents and average of 7 to 8 future crimes.
* Kristine Crouch, Indiana CODIS Administrator of the Indiana State Police-- biological
crime scene evidence uploaded to CODIS leads to 40% of those searches yield a matching suspect. DNA at Arrest would increase the number of "Known Persons" in a DNA database thus increaseing matches National Institute of Justice to five communities (Los Angeles, Topeka, Denver, Phoenix and California's Orange County) to study the effectiveness of DNA forensics in
the investigation of property crimes. The project called The DNA Field Experiment: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Use of DNA in the Investigation of High-Volume Crimes highlighted the importance of testing the DNA profile found at burglary scene because one burglar often commits many burglaries before being caught. A summary of the study can be found at Burglars Go Bust: The DNA Field Experiment
In November 2005, with NIJ funding, the Denver Burglary Project was started. Two years
into the project, nearly 100 prolific burglars were caught and convicted. As a result of the 100 convictions, the burglary rate in Denver dropped 26%
**August 26, 2004, the appellate court overturned the lower court and ruled that the DNA Collection Act does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court's opinion included: "The DNA
profile thus serves the purpose of increasing the efficiency and accuracy in identifying individuals within a certain class of convicted criminals. The purpose is akin to that of a fingerprint". State v. Raines 857 A.2d 19, 33 (Md. 2004).
(1)In the case U.S. v. Pool, the court decided the federal law that requires DNA to be taken from individuals charged with a federal felony didn’t violate defendant Jerry Pool’s constitutional rights. Pool was required to give a sample after being charged with possession of child pornography. Rep. Jay Neal, R-LaFayette, who sponsored the House bill that was used in place of
McKoon’s bill, said his legislation makes it easier for those who were arrested to get their records expunged if their charges are dropped or they are acquitted. U.S. Appeals Court: OK to check DNA of those arrested. A closely divided 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the collection of DNA samples from people arrested -- but not yet convicted -- of crimes is constitutional. The appeals court rejected U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone's 2009 order finding that law enforcement could not collect DNA from Ruben Mitchell, who faces a federal charge of attempting to possess and distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Judge Cercone had found that requiring pre-trial detainees to submit DNA samples, which is done under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, violates the 4th Amendment's search and seizure rules.
In an 8-6 ruling, the circuit judges found that people who are arrested have "a diminished
expectation of privacy in their identities." Outweighing their privacy, they found, is the importance to law enforcement of correctly identifying people who are charged with crimes, determining their criminal history, potentially linking them to unsolved crimes and promptly ruling out involvement in a crime in cases in which the DNA does not match that found at the scene. "In sum, under the totality of the circumstances, given arrestees' and pretrial detainees' diminished expectations of privacy in their identities and the Government's legitimate interests in the collection of DNA from these individuals, we conclude that such collection is reasonable and
does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Judge Fuentes wrote.
(2) Anderson v. Com, Virginia
Supreme Court, No. 062051, 9/14/07, the collection of DNA from an arrestee did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the statute authorizing this collection is constitutional. Anderson.PDF FOR
(3) In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.T.L., Minnesota Court of Appeals, A06-874, File No.
J4-05-52203, 10/10/06, the Minnesota DNA arrestee statute violates the Fourth Amendment. C.T.L..PDF AGAINST
(4)United States v. Pool,09-015-EJG-GGH, Eastern District of California, May 27, 2009, the
court upheld the constitutionality of DNA sample collection from all those arrested upon probable cause for the commission of a federal felony finding that after a judicial or grand jury determination of probable cause has been made for felony criminal charges against a defendant, no Fourth Amendment or other Constitutional violation is caused by a requirement that the defendant undergo a mouth swab or blood test for the purposes of DNA analysis to be used for criminal law enforcement identification purposes. Pool.PDF affirmed in US v. Pool 9th Circuit CA No. 09-10303 9/14/10 Pool 9th C CA.pdf FOR
(5)US v. Mitchell, US Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, No. 09-4718, July 25, 2011, the court upheld
the constitutionality of DNA sample collection from those arrested upon probable cause for the commission of a federal felony finding that arrestees have a diminished expectation of privacy in their identities, and DNA collection from arrestees serves important law enforcement interests, therefore such collection is reasonable and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Mitchell.PDF FOR
(6)Haskell v. Brown, US District Court for the Northern District of California, C 09-04779CRB, 12/23/09, the court denied a motion to enjoin the enforcement of the California arrestee statute finding that the plaintiff was not likely to succeed in establishing that the statue violated the Fourth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Haskell.pdf FOR
(7)U.S. v. Thomas, US District Court of Western District of New York, 10-CR-6172CJS,
2/14/11, the court found that the defendant’s status as an indicted person does not materially affect the analysis of the privacy right at stake in the collection of a DNA sample. The court ruled that the only privacy interest implicated by the Federal DNA Act is identity and the government’s interest in accurate and rapid identifications outweighs the defendant’s privacy interest in the collection and analysis of a DNA sample. Thomas.pdf FOR
(8)People v. Buza, California Court of Appeals, First District, A125542, 8/4/11, the court concluded that the California DNA Act, to the extent it requires felony arrestees to submit a DNA sample for law enforcement analysis and inclusion in the state and federal DNA databases, without independent suspicion, a warrant or even a judicial or grand jury determination of probable cause, unreasonably intrudes on such arrestees‘ expectation of privacy and is invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Buza.PDF FOR
(9)Coffey v. Superior Court, California CA Div. 5, No. A108693, 5/24/05 (A defendant convicted,
on a felony complaint, of an offense punishable as either a felony or misdemeanor may be compelled to give a DNA sample, and is not entitled to have information deleted from the state's DNA bank if the offense is eventually determined to be a misdemeanor.) coffey.PDF FOR
U.S. v. Kraklio, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th CIRCUIT, No. 06-1369, 6/27/06, No Fourth
Amendment violation in the required DNA sampling of individuals on probation, parole or supervised release following federal criminal convictions. US v. Kraklio.pdf FOR
(10)U.S. v. Conley, U.S.Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit. No. 05-5900 7/7/06, (an order of the
district court requiring defendant to submit to blood sampling for DNA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 14135a, which was imposed as part of her sentence pursuant to a guilty plea to bank fraud, is affirmed over claims that: 1) the collection of her DNA violated the Fourth Amendment, as a search required some individualized suspicion of wrongdoing; 2) the DNA testing did not meet the requirements of the "special needs" doctrine; and 3) the search failed the "totality of the circumstances" test). U.S. v. Conley.PDF FOR
(11)Banks v. U.S., U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit. No. No. 06-5068 6/18/07, (the court
applied the totality-of-circumstances test in upholding the Federal DNA database statute). Banks et al v. US.PDF FOR
(12)U.S. v. Lujan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 02-30237, Oct. 2, 2007, the court
upheld the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 42 U.S.C. §§14135-14135e rejecting claims it violated the 4th Amendment, the Ex Post Facto Clause, that is was an unconstitutional bill of
attainder, and contravened the separation of powers. Lujan.PDF FOR
(13)U.S. v. Kriesel, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 06-30110, 11/29/07, the court
upheld the “Justice for All Act” of 2004 which amended 42 U.S.C. §§14135-14135e rejecting claims it violated the 4th Amendment. Kriesel.PDF FOR
(14)U.S. v. Amerson, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Nos. 05-1423 and 05-1063, 4/4/07,
the court upheld the constitutionality of “Justice for All Act” of
2004 rejecting the claim that it violates the 4th Amendment Amerson.pdf FOR
(15)In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.T.L., Minnesota Court of Appeals, A06-874, File No.
J4-05-52203, 10/10/06, the Minnesota DNA arrestee statute violates the Fourth Amendment. C.T.L..PDF AGAINST
(16)Anderson v. Com, Virginia Supreme Court, No. 062051, 9/14/07, the collection of DNA from an arrestee did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the statute authorizing this collection is constitutional. Anderson.PDF FOR
(17)Good v. Superior Court of Humbolt County, California Court of Appeals, 1st District, Division
1, A117317, 1/16/08, requiring registering sex offenders to give a DNA sample for the database regardless of the date of their offense was constitutional. Good.PDF FOR
(18)R. v. Rodgers, Supreme Court of Canada, 2006 SCC 15, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554 SCC 15, the court
upheld a Criminal Code provision and the 1998 DNA Identification Act[iii], allowing for retroactive DNA sampling of prisoners without notice. The court found that these offenders identity have become a matter of state interest and they have lost any reasonable expectation of privacy in their identifying information derived from DNA sampling in the same way as they have lost any expectation ofprivacy in their fingerprints, photograph or any other identifying
measure. Rodgers.PDF FOR
(19)Kaemmerling, v. Lappin and Mukasey, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, No. 07-5065, 12/30/08, the collection of DNA from a convicted felon for database purposes does not violate the ReligiousFreedom Restoration Act or the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. Kaemmerling.pdf Kaemmerling, v. Lappin andMukasey, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 07-5065, 12/30/08, the collection of DNA from a convicted felon for database purposes does not violate the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act or the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. Kaemmerling.pdf FOR

For more information on arrestee DNA database sampling see:
1. DNA Saves
2. Chicago’s Study on Preventable Crimes - requiring DNA for Felony arrests can solve and prevent violent crimes. Waiting for conviction can cost lives, Study by the City of Chicago, 2005 Chicago Preventable Crimes-Final.pdf Arrestee law Chicago Study.wmv
3. Maryland Study on Preventable Crimes - Requiring DNA for qualifying arrests in the proposed legislation can solve and prevent violent crimes. Study by the Maryland Criminal Justice Information System, the Baltimore County Police Department and the Maryland State Police, 2008. MarylandDNAarresteestudy.pdf
4. Washington State Preventable Crime Study 2008. WA Preventable Crime.pdf
5. The FBI Rules for Arrestee and Detainee DNA Collection, Federal Register,
Vol. 73, No. 76, 4/18/08. the FBI final rule on arrestee and detainee

6.Denver’s Study on Preventable Crimes - Requiring DNA for felony arrests can solve and prevent violent crimes. Waiting for conviction can cost lives and allows sexual predators to continue to rape victims, Study by the Denver District Attorney’s Office 2009. Denver's Preventable Crimes Study.pdf
7. Why Arrestee DNA Legislation Can Save Indianan Taxpayers Over $50 Million
Per Year, Siegel and Narveson, January 2009. Indiana Arrestee Legislation - Jan 13 2009.pdf
8. The Constitutionality of DNA Sampling on Arrest, DH Kaye 2000,
9.DNA Saves: More states are finding collecting DNA upon arrest saves
lives, money and time, by Ronnie Garrett,, February 2009
10. Denver Katie’s Law News Story – McGee arrest - Channel 7 News 11/2/11
Argument For Taking DNA From Arrestees Criminals tend to be repeat offenders and numerous studies that have documented that the
taking of arrestee's DNA helps to reduce and avoid crime, especially homicides and rapes. For example, in a recent Indiana Study each conviction of an offender prevented an average of seven to eight future crimes. And according to an article published in the Michigan Law Review in 1991 (Vol. 89, 1991), "Bright Lines, Dark Deeds: Counting Convictions Under the Armed Career Criminal Act," by James E. Hooper, 70% of American crime is committed by just 6% of its criminals.
Virginia's Arrestee's Experience
On January 1, 2003, the state of Virginia was the first state to collect DNA from people who were arrested for certain violent and sex crimes. This law was passed under the condition that if the person arrested was later found to be innocent or if the charges were dropped, the arrestees' DNA
profile would automatically be destroyed and removed from Virginia DNA Database. The arrestee law has proven to be beneficial in catching repeat offenders. Between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2009, a total of 559 hits to the Arrestee Database have been obtained. Eighty-nine of the hits were associated with sexual assault cases.
The Maryland Study
A study in Maryland, was performed in support of two bills, HB 370 and SB 211, to allow DNA to be taken from arrestees. The study was designed to examine the results of collecting DNA from felons arrested for crimes of violence and burglaries. The Maryland Study assessed the
criminal histories of three offenders and found that if DNA samples had been
required upon arrest, twenty crimes could have been prevented. These two bills were subsequently passed and as of January 1, 2009 DNA is being taken from arrestees.
The Denver Study
The Denver District Attorney's Office conducted a study that analyzed the criminal activities of five offenders. The analysis demonstrated that previously undetected crimes could have been prevented and/or solved had these offenders provided DNA upon their first arrest. The study concluded that the following crimes could have been prevented if DNA had been taken from just
these five arrestees: 3 Murders*18 Sexual Assaults*1 Attempted Sexual Assault*7 Kidnappings*4 Robberies*3 Felony Assault*11 Burglaries

On May 21st, 2009, Colorado's Katie's Law, SB 09-241, was signed into law by Governor Ritter. (To learn more about this law please click on State Representative Scott Tipton's website.)
The Chicago Study 2005, the city of Chicago, performed a study on the criminal
activities of eight repeat offenders over a 12-year period who were identified as being responsible for 60 violent crimes including 53 murders and rapes. By examining their criminal history it was concluded that these crimes could have been prevented if DNA had been treated as "the fingerprint of the 21st century." In each case, the offender had committed unsolved violent crimes
that could have been solved immediately through a DNA match. However, the taking of DNA for sex crimes or sexual assaults, at the time of the offense, was not required at arrest and the following preventable crimes occurred: 22 murders – victims ranging from 24 to 44 years of age
30 rapes – victims ranging from 15 to 65 years of age, Attempted rapes, Aggravated
kidnapping. These eight repeat offenders in Chicago accumulated a total of 21 felony arrests before finally being identified in violent crimes. Only seven of the prior felony arrests were for violent crimes – the remaining two-thirds were for non-violent felonies. However, in May 2009, even after this report was published, the Illinois legislature defeated a bill that would have mandated DNA collection from arrestees.
State – The Serial Rapist Example: On January 17, 2005, legislators introduced two bills (HB 1135 and SB 5165) to allow law enforcement to collect a DNA sample from people arrested for felonies. After hearing testimony against this legislation from the criminal defense bar and the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU), the Washington State Legislature chose not to pass this public safety measure. In reaction to this, a study was published, "The Washington State Preventable
Crime Study"
, which focused on the criminal activities of one serial rapist whose crimes could have been prevented had these two bills been passed. During the summer and fall of 2005, a serial rapist named Anthony Casper Dias was able to go on a crime spree before he was identified and
arrested. On July 31, 2005, Dias was arrested for felony hit-and-run. No DNA was taken because there was no law that required it. Dias posted bond and was released from custody pending trial. One month later, on August 31, he raped a 19 year-old woman in her bedroom. DNA was collected from this rape, but the perpetrator could not be identified because there was no matching DNA in the DNA database. Dias continued with his crime spree that summer and raped a total of eight women and girls. He was finally arrested on November 8th, 2005, one day after raping two girls, aged 13 and 15, in their home. In September 2008, Dias was convicted of 20 felony counts and was sentenced to 227 years in prison. If authorities had been able to take Dias'
DNA after the hit-and-run in July 2005 it is very likely that most if not all of the subsequent rapes would not have occurred. In February 2009, a new House Bill, HB 1382, was introduced in
Washington to take DNA samples from persons arrested for felonies and other serious crimes.

The Indiana Study
In January 2009, a detailed study was published by Jay Siegel, Ph.D., Department Chair, Forensic and Investigative Science Analytical and Forensic Chemistry, IUPUI, and Susan D. Narveson, former Chief of the Investigative and Forensic Sciences Division of NIJ's Office of Science and
Technology, now Chief Operating Officer at Strand Analytical Laboratories, entitled "Why Arrestee DNA Legislation can save Indiana Taxpayers over $50 Million per Year."
This study found that collecting DNA from arrestees would significantly reduce the financial burden on taxpayers. It would also make Indiana a "safer society" and more attractive for businesses and people to move there. In January 2009, before adopting the DNA Arrestee law, Senate Bill 24, a Senate Judiciary Committee, listened to a representative from Strand Analytical Laboratories explain that it could "save Indiana almost $20 million a year in law enforcement and
judicial costs owing to the number of crimes being prevented, if the law is passed."
According to the study, criminals tend to be repeat offenders and each conviction prevents
and average of 7 to 8 future crimes, yielding a potential fiscal benefit of over $13,000 per conviction. By comparing arrestee's DNA to the DNA database of unknown assailants (biological evidence found at crime scenes) a hit may occur. Such a hit can help solve a crime and by doing so also become a crime prevention tool.

According to Kristine Crouch, Indiana CODIS Administrator of the Indiana State Police, when
biological crime scene evidence is uploaded to CODIS in search of potential leads,
40% of those searches yield a matching suspect. Increasing the number of "Known Persons" in a DNA database with DNA of arrestees will increase the number of crime-scene evidence

Conclusion Taking the DNA of arrestees can protect countless
innocent people by catching and convicting criminals early in their criminal
careers. In addition, it can save law enforcement and the justice system an
enormous amount of money and resources. If thousands of crimes can be avoided by
swabbing the cheek of those who are arrested, what is more important – the
right of an individual not to give DNA or the right of a society not to be
victimized? After all, law enforcement has been taking fingerprints from
arrestees for decades. Admittedly, DNA can provide more information than a
fingerprint, but if the appropriate protections are in place (i.e. purging the
database where arrestees are found innocent or where charges are dismissed)
this approach can provide law enforcement and the judicial system with a
powerful forensic tool to help protect society.