Debate still simmers over the proper limits of forensic DNA testing in Colorado, and a controversial program to expand it is a long way from launch. But on Wednesday, the collection of fees to pay for the program becomes a done deal.

Among a handful of new fees that kick in July 1, the beginning of the state’s 2009-10 fiscal year, is a $5 surcharge on every conviction in the state – all felonies, misdemeanors and traffic infractions.

The surcharge is to prime the pump for the collection of DNA profiles of Coloradans arrested on suspicion of a felony.

Convicted felons in all 50 states are required to submit a DNA sample, usually a swab of saliva. Beginning Sept. 30, 2010, Colorado law enforcement authorities will be getting out their Q-tips for people merely arrested in connection with a felony, long before their guilt or innocence is determined.

All felony arrestees in Colorado are to be swabbed, just as they are now required to submit to fingerprinting. The DNA sample will be sent to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for inclusion in the state and national DNA databases only if an arrestee is subsequently charged with a felony. But if the arrestee is ultimately acquitted or charges are dropped, the state will have no obligation to remove the DNA profile from its database unless the arrestee requests it.

Supporters of the new law say that by swabbing more of the people most likely to commit serious crimes, and getting them into the system sooner, expanded DNA testing will prevent crime.

“If you catch a serial rapist the first time, then he doesn’t commit seven or eight other sexual assaults,” said Mitch Morrissey, the Denver district attorney and an internationally recognized leader in the use of DNA in criminal investigations.

“Ninety percent of the crimes we solve with DNA, women are the victims of those crimes,” Morrissey said. “The 10 percent that are left, about 9.5 of them are kids. So this is a science that solves violent crimes against women and children, and that’s why the expansion of this database is so important. It helps us catch very violent sexual predators and take them off the streets — people that are raping and murdering the women and children in our communities.”

Critics say the change violates the legal presumption of innocence as well as constitutional protections against self-incrimination and unreasonable searches and seizures.

“I think there’s a very good argument that they violate the Fourth Amendment,” Cathryn Hazouri, executive director of the ACLU of Colorado, said of DNA testing. “Especially when you’re talking about taking DNA from arrestees, from people who have not been found guilty of anything.”

She said that of about 60,000 people arrested annually on felony charges in Colorado, 24,000 have their cases dismissed or are found not guilty. “There’s going to be a lot of people whose privacy is invaded for no good reason,” she said.

Morrissey dismissed privacy arguments. “We take fingerprints at booking, we take mug shots, we note scars, we note tattoos,” he said, “and taking a swab of somebody’s cheek cells is no more intrusive than taking their fingerprints.”

Hazouri countered that hackers could get into DNA databases; for example, an unscrupulous employer could find and discriminate against employees who have a genetic predisposition for heart disease or mental illness. “They say the databases are safe,” Hazouri said. “We know databases are not safe.”

Passage of the bill by the Legislature featured an unusual role reversal: all four of the Pikes Peak region’s Republican senators sided with the American Civil Liberties Union against the bill, while most Democrats followed the bill’s lead sponsor, Sen. John Morse of Colorado Springs, and sided with the police and prosecutors who supported the measure.

Twenty states now have laws enabling DNA collections from arrestees. But the courts have not reached a unanimous verdict. Virginia’s arrestee DNA law was upheld, but Minnesota’s was struck down, and the question seems likely to wind up before the Supreme Court.

Even as the judicial process plays out, some law enforcement officials are already pushing for the next step: DNA searches for partial matches, also called “familial matches.”

Under current procedures, criminal DNA labs do not search the databases for profiles that are not perfect matches but are close enough to ascertain that the perp is a blood relative of someone whose DNA is on file. Armed with this information, the pool of possible suspects would shrink dramatically. It’s easier to catch a crook if the detectives know who one of his blood relatives is.

Morrissey is leading the charge for familial searches in Colorado, and voiced frustration that his office had become head cheerleader for the idea. He said the job properly belonged to the FBI, but accused the feds of caving in to ACLU opposition.

“I don’t know what you tell the victims of a serial rapist or serial murderer when you don’t even bother to look” at partial matches, Morrissey said.

John Suthers, the state attorney general, said no law prevents Colorado from performing familial searches, but he’s wary of giving the CBI the go-ahead. “I need to know more about familial testing and how accurate it is,” he said, but added that if such concerns are satisfied, “there’s a certain inevitability” about it being adopted in this state.

Morrissey said arrestee DNA and familial searches would not send Colorado down a slippery slope toward an Orwellian world where everyone’s DNA was on file.

“I think that you can get to the point where you have the majority of people who commit the majority of your crimes in your database, and that’s probably the extent of having to do it,” he said. “I’ve had people say, ‘Well, why don’t they take DNA samples from you when you get your driver’s license, why don’t they take it from every newborn?’ I just don’t think it’s necessary. Most people don’t commit crimes. Most people don’t need to be in a DNA database.”

Hazouri said swabbing every newborn was OK with her. “Of course it’s too Big Brother, but at least it’s too Big Brother for everybody,” she said.

Americans would never put up with universal DNA testing, she said, adding, “Once you make everyone subject to DNA testing, the DNA testing will stop.”

–

Contact the writer at 476-1654

YOUR NICKEL, YOUR DIME

Attention, senior-citizen smokers with lots of cars and plans to divorce and remarry: the cost of being a Coloradan goes up on July 1, especially for you.

Fifty-seven new laws go into effect at the beginning of the state’s fiscal year, including a handful that will hit many residents in the wallet. Here are the big-ticket items:

Registration fees are going up by $32 for most cars and light trucks.

A property tax exemption — 50 percent of the first $200,000 of actual value — given to homeowners aged 65-plus and fully disabled veterans is being suspended.

The cost of marriage licenses goes up by $20 and divorce filings by $10.

Cigarette buyers will pay state sales tax, adding 15 cents to the cost of a $5 pack.

Fees totaling $5.50 will be added to the penalty for every felony, misdemeanor or traffic infraction.

Pine Creek High School graduate Andrew Short will race Saturday in Lakewood. Photo by COURTESY OF SIMON CUDBY