The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday tabled a bill that would increase the scope of the state’s criminal DNA collection because of a backlog in processing existing samples.
The decision came after Dr. Trisha Conti, director of the Vermont Forensics Laboratory, told lawmakers that the lab has approximately 2,500 samples waiting to be processed and added to the state database.
“The backlog is because we essentially have only one analyst doing all the work, and she was on maternity leave,” Conti said.
Under current law, a DNA sample is taken from every convicted felon in Vermont. S.10 would have expanded the program to include anybody convicted of a misdemeanor that carried a potential sentence of jail time.
If passed, S.10 would generate between 4,600 and 9,100 new DNA samples the state lab would have to process.
Thursday morning, Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, one of the bill’s sponsors and chair of the Judiciary Committee, told his fellow lawmakers that he could no longer support the bill “in good conscience.”
Sears said he would not pass legislation expanding the scope of the DNA database until the backlog is cleared.
“That means there are a lot of people out there who are required under the current law to provide DNA who haven’t been through the process,” Sears said. “They may have committed other crimes, and we haven’t even solved the backlog.”
To reach the capacity to process the additional samples S.10 would generate, the department would need funding to hire additional personnel as well as for the DNA sampling kits themselves. Each sample kit costs about $30.
Sears asked Paco Aumand, deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, to develop a plan to deal with the DNA data backlog to present to the Senate Judiciary Committee next week.
“This is public safety, this isn’t like some of the other stuff we fund in the budget that’s really nice but not absolutely necessary,” Sears said to the committee. “To me, this is necessary.”
In 2008, shortly after the rape and murder of 12-year-old Brooke Bennett, lawmakers changed the law to require DNA samples from anybody arraigned for a felony, a misdemeanor charge that would require registration as a sex offender, or a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence.
The DNA upon arraignment law was overturned by the state Supreme Court in July, on grounds that it violated the Vermont Constitution.
At the time the law passed, funding was designated for two chemist positions. A chemist already employed by the lab, whose federally funded position was set to expire, filled one position. The other position was not filled. The lab faced more staffing difficulties two years ago when a supervisor died suddenly. That position has also remained vacant.
Aumand said in an interview the hiring process has been challenging.
“Generally it’s associated with finding qualified people to take these scientific jobs at compensation that the state of Vermont is paying,” Aumand said.
The department needs the resources to handle the volume of samples the expanded program would generate, he said.
The department does not have money available now to hire a second chemist, nor are funds for a new technician included in the governor’s proposed fiscal year 2016 budget.
Aumand said the Department of Public Safety supports the expansion of the DNA database as outlined in S.10.
“DNA samples help and aid in the criminal justice system, both finding suspects and eliminating suspects,” Aumand said.
Allen Gilbert, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, applauded the tabling of S.10.
“We think it’s good that the Legislature has slowed down on this, for the moment,” Gilbert said.
In testimony before the committee, Gilbert said the bill would violate the search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution.
He pointed out that misdemeanors that carry jail time in Vermont include knowingly mislabeling maple syrup or bringing more than eight quarts of liquor across the border.
“We hope that in the long run people will see that this is not a good idea.”
