Crimes That Require DNA Submission in California 

Currently, all states have laws requiring individuals convicted of certain felonies to provide DNA samples for inclusion in their crime databases.

Additionally, thirty states have laws that mandate DNA submission before conviction, meaning defendants must submit samples even if they are not yet convicted. California law has some of the broadest and most controversial standards for DNA collection.

Since 2009, following Proposition 69 approved by voters, anyone arrested on suspicion of a felony is required to submit a DNA sample for the database, regardless of whether they are convicted or charged.

California voters approved Proposition 69, known as the "DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime, and Innocence Protection Act,' which broadens and adjusts state laws on collecting and using DNA samples and palm prints from criminal offenders.

The law assigns the enforcement duty to the Attorney General's Office, the California Department of Justice, and other relevant state and local agencies.

Key Takeaways

  • Proposition 69, commonly called the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime, and Innocence Protection Act, has sparked considerable debate since it was enacted.
  • Proposition 69 was enacted with two key goals: improving the state's capacity to solve crimes and preventing wrongful convictions.
  • The Act accomplishes these goals by extending the prior rule, which required DNA samples from convicted felons, to nearly anyone arrested on suspicion of a felony.
  • DNA samples are incorporated into the Department of Justice's DNA database.
  • This legislation is based on the idea that expanding the DNA database allows law enforcement agencies to match DNA evidence from crime scenes to individuals in the database.
  • This process helps identify and catch perpetrators, which assists in solving crimes and stopping future offenses.

What Does Proposition 69 Say?

Implementing Proposition 69 will primarily involve law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, the courts, correctional agencies, and facilities for mental health and sex offender treatment concerning California's DNA database.

California Proposition 69

The text of Prop 69 says, "The people of the State of California do hereby find and declare that:

(a) Our communities have a compelling interest in protecting themselves from crime.

(b) There is a critical and urgent need to provide law enforcement officers and agencies with the latest scientific technology available for accurately and expeditiously identifying, apprehending, arresting, and convicting criminal offenders and exonerating persons wrongly suspected or accused of crime.

(c) Law enforcement should be able to use the DNA Database and  Data Bank Program to reduce the number of unsolved crimes substantially and to help stop serial crime by quickly comparing DNA profiles of qualifying persons and evidence samples with as many investigations and cases as necessary to solve crime, apprehend perpetrators, and to exonerate persons wrongly suspected or accused of a crime, and to identify human remains."

Which Specific Crimes Require DNA Submission

Proposition 69 requires DNA submission from individuals suspected of committing felony offenses. The applicable crime categories include:

  • Kidnapping (Penal Code 207 and 209 PC)
  • Mayhem (Penal Code 203 and 205 PC)
  • Torture (Penal Code 206 PC)
  • Residential burglary (Penal Code 460 PC)
  • Residential robbery (Penal Code 212.5 PC)
  • Arson (Penal Code 451 PC)
  • Carjacking (Penal Code 215 PC)
  • Terrorist activity (Penal Code 11418 and 11419 PC)
  • Felony spousal abuse (Penal Code 273.5 PC)
  • Sexual assault of a child under 14 (Penal Code 269 PC)
  • Felony assault or battery (Penal Code 243 and 245 PC)
  • Felony sex offense (Penal Code 290 PC)
  • Voluntary manslaughter (Penal Code 192 PC)
  • Murder, including 1st and 2nd-degree murder (Penal Code 187 PC)

Debate Over California's DNA Legislation

Proposition 69 marks a major shift from prior law by classifying individuals deemed "innocent until proven guilty" as those convicted of certain felonies. This has led to substantial controversy, opposition, and legal challenges seeking to overturn the law.

Proponents claim that Proposition 69 improves law enforcement's capacity to solve crimes and reduce wrongful convictions.

By enlarging the DNA database, investigators can match DNA evidence from crime scenes to database entries, helping to identify and arrest suspects.

Proponents also argue that the DNA database has played a crucial role in exonerating wrongly convicted individuals. However, critics of Proposition 69 express significant concerns regarding privacy rights and the potential for DNA data to be misused.

They claim that collecting DNA samples from individuals who are merely arrested but not convicted violates civil liberties and privacy rights. Critics also worry about genetic discrimination, where DNA data might be misused for reasons beyond law enforcement.

Additionally, concerns have been raised about the database's security, as critics question whether sufficient protections are in place to prevent data breaches or unauthorized access.

These concerns highlight the importance of implementing strict oversight and robust security protocols to manage the DNA database.

What About the Legal Challenges?

Proposition 69 faced its initial legal challenge shortly after implementation. The case of People v. Buza (2009) involved a defendant arrested for arson and associated felony charges.

During the booking process, he declined to provide the mandated DNA sample. Consequently, he was convicted both for the arson-related crimes and for the misdemeanor of refusing to provide a DNA sample.

In 2011, a San Francisco state appeals court ruled in favor of the defendant and declared Prop 69 unconstitutional.

However, in 2018, the California State Supreme Court upheld Proposition 69, allowing it to remain fully in effect. The controversy persists, and most experts anticipate further legal challenges to the law.

Who Manages the DNA Information

The Department of Justice's DNA databank stores the collected DNA data, adhering to strict protocols and safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of the information.

Access is restricted to authorized law enforcement personnel and is governed by legal restrictions.

Nonetheless, the potential for breaches or misuse of DNA information cannot be ruled out entirely. Robust security measures and oversight must be in place to prevent unauthorized access or misuse of the DNA database.

To maintain public trust and confidence in the system, regular audits and stringent penalties for misuse or unauthorized access should be implemented.

For more information or a case review, contact our California criminal defense attorneys. The Hedding Law Firm is based in Los Angeles, CA.