AT THE CAPITOL
Revised legislation now puts focus on rape kits
Arizona Sen. David Livingston speaks at the state Capitol on Wednesday when a drastically overhauled bill dealing with DNA evidence was advanced by a Senate committee.
The controversial bill that initially proposed an unprecedented statewide DNA database passed an Arizona Senate committee Wednesday after being stripped practically beyond recognition.
The third iteration of Senate Bill 1475 in less than 72 hours now focuses specifically on testing samples obtained via a rape kit using Rapid DNA technology. But it appears to benefit a single company that provides the technology to the state.
Sen. David Livingston, R-Peoria, introduced the original bill, decided to hear it in the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee he chairs, and then — as opposition to the bill exploded — amended the bill twice.
The newest version was pushed forward right before the public committee hearing. Livingston offered it as an even more limited-scope alternative to the second iteration of the bill, which zeroed in on employees at intermediate health care facilities.
The amendment did away entirely with the previously-proposed creation of a new DNA database and instead focused on expediting the testing of rape kits. The samples would be checked against the current database, which includes anyone convicted of a felony, a misdemeanor sex crime, exploitation of a child or “other serious or dangerous offenses.”
It also dropped the $250 fee that was to be paid by anyone submitting a sample.
The passage of the bill could improve investigations by identifying a rapist within only a few hours of a sexual assault.
Investigators used Rapid DNA testing in the Hacienda case and the suspect was arrested the same day his DNA was taken.
The State Crime Lab already tests sexual assault kits.
It’s unclear how long it currently takes or how often they already use the Rapid DNA instrument over traditional testing methods.
The bill specifically says the Department of Public Safety must use Rapid DNA technology. Rapid DNA instru-
ments from companies ANDE and Thermo Fisher Scientific are already used at the crime lab, according to a DPS spokesman.
These are the only companies that currently manufacture the instrument.
The bill also specifies that the instrument must be certified by the FBI. James Davis, a former FBI agent and representative for ANDE, told the Senate committee that only ANDE has that certification.
No information was provided during the committee hearing about how much the bill would cost DPS to implement.
Multiple committee members expressed concern that this would give ANDE a monopoly with the state.
“This bill started out including so many groups,” Sen. Lisa Otondo, D-Yuma, said. “I saw it shrink and I saw it shrink and I saw it shrink. Now we’re looking at a bill with merely representation by the vendor. There’s a certain discomfort I have with this bill.”
It’s not clear whether the results from a Rapid DNA system would even be admissible in court. Davis said they don’t know because every case so far has ended with the defendant pleading guilty before the case went to trial.
Sen. Lupe Contreras, D-Avondale, described the bill — even in its newest form — as a “stepping stone into madness.”
He said he was shocked that Livingston was even considering the bill.
Livingston said he’s discussed the bill with attorneys, police chiefs and others, but no law enforcement personnel or victims’ advocates spoke during the hearing. It’s not clear which law enforcement and advocacy groups — if any — support the bill in its new form.
Only ANDE’s representatives spoke in favor of the bill.
The committee approved the re-vamped rape kit testing bill 5-3 with Otondo, Contreras and Sen. Jamescita Peshlakai, D-Window Rock, voting against it. It now advances to the full Senate for consideration.
Livingston explained that the initial bill was brought to him following the scandal at Hacienda HealthCare, where an incapacitated patient was raped and impregnated.
“That bill got my attention,” he said. “Why did it get my attention? Sexual assault. Abuse. Rape. Unacceptable. This body needs to do something about it.”
While anyone can write a proposed bill, only a state lawmaker can formally introduce it.
Livingston acknowledge the original versions of the bill were too broad and intrusive. It would have required anyone who needs fingerprint clearance from the state — health care workers, teachers, school volunteers, foster parents, realtors, etc. — to submit their DNA to the state.