Smart Voter Your Ballot & Poll Place On Propositions Ballot Measure Analysis Pros & Cons Prop 1A Prop 65 Prop 59 Prop 66 Prop 60 Prop 67 Prop 60A Prop 68 Prop 61 Prop 69 Prop 62 Prop 70 Prop 63 Prop 71 Prop 64 Prop 72 PDF In Depth Prop 1A Prop 65 Prop 59 Prop 66 Prop 60 Prop 67 Prop 60A Prop 68 Prop 61 Prop 69 Prop 62 Prop 70 Prop 63 Prop 71 Prop 64 Prop 72 About Ballot Measures Background How to Evaluate State Bond Debt The Initiative Process Other Absentee Voting Register to Vote

DNA SAMPLES. COLLECTION. DATABASE. FUNDING.
Initiative Statute

THE QUESTION

Should California change current law to expand mandatory collection of DNA retroactively to all convicted felons and some nonfelons and, in 2009, to individuals arrested on both nonviolent and violent felony charges?

THE SITUATION

Because of the effectiveness of DNA fingerprints in solving crimes, California law requires collection of blood samples for DNA from felons convicted of sexual assault and other violent crimes such as murder and manslaughter.

Persons convicted of certain crimes in California may be ordered to pay fines, part of which support state programs and activities.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 69 would amend current law to signficantly expand the state’s DNA database to include people convicted of nonviolent felonies and individuals arrested on any felony charge. On passage, the initiative would require:

• Immediate collection of DNA from
  1. adults and juveniles convicted of any felony offense who are in custody, on parole or probation;
  2. adults and juveniles convicted of any sex or arson offense, including misdemeanors;
  3. adults arrested for or charged with felony sex offenses, murder or voluntary manslaughter.
• Beginning in 2009, collection of DNA from adults arrested for any felony, violent or non-violent.
• Collection of DNA blood samples on request by the California Department of Justice. It would also raise criminal financial penalties and make tampering with or misusing DNA evidence a crime.

FISCAL EFFECT

State costs would increase by nearly $20 million annually by 2009-2010 due to costs of sampling and analyzing DNA. Local costs probably will be more than fully offset by the revenue from increased penalties.

WHAT A YES OR NO VOTE MEANS

A YES vote means that mandatory collection of DNA would be expanded retroactively to all convicted felons and some nonfelons and in 2009 to individuals arrested on both nonviolent and violent felony charges.

A NO vote means that blood samples, from which DNA is obtained, would continue to be required only from persons who are convicted of serious felony offenses.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• California is behind other states when it comes to using DNA to solve and prevent crime.
• Taking a DNA sample at the same time as fingerprints is more efficient and helps police in their investigation.
• Proposition 69 protects privacy by prohibiting use of DNA for anything except identification.

OPPONENTS SAY

• Proposition 69 goes too far by including possibly innocent people in a criminal database.
• People wrongly accused no longer will have their DNA automatically expunged, and will face a complicated legal process without right of appeal.
• The minimal procedural safeguards do not protect people from misuse of their entire genetic blueprint.

For more information:

Supporters: Californians for the DNA Fingerprint, (916) 448-5802, www.DNAYES.org

Opponents: Protect My DNA, (415) 621- 1192, www.protectmyDNA.org

Send comments concerning the format or usability of this page to lwvc@vcwatts.org