Forensic testing: DNA samples.

(1) Existing law, as amended by the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, Proposition 69, approved by the voters at the November 2, 2004, general election (the DNA Act) requires that any adult person who is arrested or charged with any felony offense to provide buccal swab samples, right thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples required for law enforcement identification analysis. Existing law requires that blood specimens and buccal swab samples be forwarded promptly to the Department of Justice for analysis. Existing case law, People v. Buza (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1446, review granted February 18, 2015, S223698, holds that the DNA Act, to the extent it requires felony arrestees to submit to a DNA sample for law enforcement analysis and inclusion in the state and federal DNA databases, without independent suspicion, a warrant, or a judicial or grand jury determination of probable cause, unreasonably intrudes on the arrestee's expectation of privacy and is invalid under the California Constitution. The DNA Act provides that it may be amended by a statute passed by each house of the Legislature that furthers the purpose of the measure. This bill would state that it is the intention of the Legislature to further the purposes of the DNA Act in light of the above-specified case law. The bill would, if the California Supreme Court rules to uphold People v. Buza, require that a blood specimen or buccal swab sample taken from a person arrested for the commission of a felony be forwarded to the department after a judicial determination of probable cause to believe the person has committed the offense for which he or she was arrested has been made. (2) Existing law, as amended by the DNA Act, requires a person who has been convicted of a felony offense to provide buccal swab samples, right thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples required for law enforcement identification analysis. Existing law makes these provisions retroactive, regardless of when the crime charged or committed became a qualifying offense. This bill would require a person who has been convicted of specified misdemeanors to provide buccal swab samples, right thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples required for law enforcement identification analysis. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies to collect and forward these samples, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, as amended by the DNA Act, requires that a DNA specimen and sample be destroyed and that a searchable database profile be expunged from the databank program if the person from whom the specimen or sample was collected has no past or present offense or pending charge which qualifies that person for inclusion in the database and if that person submits an application, as specified. Existing law gives the court discretion to grant or deny the application. This bill would, if the California Supreme Court rules to uphold People v. Buza, require the DNA specimen and sample to be destroyed and the searchable database profile expunged from the database without the requirement of an application. (4) Existing law, as amended by the DNA Act, states that nothing in the act shall be construed to restrict the authority of local law enforcement to maintain their own DNA-related databases or databank. This bill would allow a law enforcement agency to use a publicly available database, excluding a law enforcement database that is not linked to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) , if the case being investigated involves a homicide or sexual assault involving force and the case is unsolved and all investigative leads have been exhausted, in which case the bill would require the law enforcement agency to review nonforensic information in order to identify additional evidence bearing on relatedness. (5) Existing law, as amended by the DNA Act, states that its provisions do not prohibit collection and analysis of specimens, samples, or print impressions as a condition of a plea for an offense that does not require the taking of samples and specimens. The bill would state that it is the intent of the Legislature to allow buccal swab samples to be taken for DNA analysis as a condition of a plea or reduction or dismissal of charges. The bill would permit a law enforcement agency to use any publicly available database to aid in the investigation of a crime. (6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.