Archive for the 'Wisconsin' Category
Targeted News Service
BYLINE: Targeted News Service
Wisconsin
Offenders No Longer in Custody Or on Supervision Must Submit Specimens Attorney General Van Hollen Advises
The Wisconsin Attorney General issued the following news release:
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen sent a letter today to Richard Raemisch, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, explaining the legal obligations of convicted offenders to submit DNA for inclusion in the databank.
The letter also discussed options for obtaining DNA from those who are no longer in DOC custody or on DOC supervision and recommends statutory changes to strengthen the law governing DNA submissions.
Conclusions of the letter include:
* The obligation to submit a biological specimen does not expire. Even if the Department of Corrections did not take a sample when an offender was in prison or require the submission of a sample when the offender was on supervision, offenders ordered or under a statutory requirement to submit a sample are under a legal duty to provide a
sample at the office of the county sheriff.
* If the offender is not under DOC control, DOC may attempt to secure an offender’s voluntary compliance by directing the offender to the county sheriff for submission of a biological specimen.
* The intentional failure to provide a biological specimen constitutes a misdemeanor. See Wis. Stat. 165.765. Because this crime is a continuing offense, the statute of limitations should not impede prosecutions of offenders previously required to submit a biological specimen but who have failed to do so.
* DOC may compel the production of DNA from an offender while the offender is in DOC custody or under DOC supervision for an offense giving rise to a duty to submit a biological specimen, and may also use appropriate sanctions for the ongoing failure to submit DNA if the offender is on probation for an offense that does not independently give rise to the obligation to submit DNA.
Van Hollen’s letter noted that the collection of a biological specimen is best performed at the onset, when an offender is in Department of Corrections’ custody or under its supervision for an offense that gives rise to the obligation to provide it. At that point, Van Hollen writes, the State’s authority to compel the submission of a biological specimen is most effective. When the offender is no longer on supervision and has failed to submit DNA, the state’s options are more limited. Encouraging voluntary cooperation is appropriate, Van Hollen concludes.
Absent voluntary cooperation, the state may criminally prosecute offenders or seek a contempt sanction. Neither option necessarily results in the production of a sample and both are potentially resource-intensive. Van Hollen stated that it would be desirable for the law to create a non-criminal mechanism to obtain an order to compel DNA submissions without the need for further criminal process. He has been working on these proposed changes that would revise and strengthen Wisconsin law relating to the collection of DNA.
A copy of the letter may be found at:
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/RaemischLetter2-25 – 10.pdf.
Additional Background
The Department of Justice operates the state’s crime laboratories, which includes the State’s DNA data bank.
Certain convicted offenders, such as those in prison for a felony on or after January 1, 2000, are required by statute or court order to submit DNA samples to the state crime laboratories for inclusion in the DNA data bank. Biological specimens of offenders are taken by the Department of Corrections or a county sheriff. Specimens are generally obtained through a buccal swab. Those samples are then sent to the state crime laboratories, where a profile is generated (generally through a contract lab), the work is reviewed, and then the profile is uploaded into the DNA convicted offender data bank. Profiles contained in a forensic database (comprised of DNA from crime scenes) and profiles generated from individual case investigations are compared against the profiles in the DNA data bank. A “hit” to the convicted offender data bank links the case with the convicted offender, and thus the data bank is a powerful tool to identify suspects.
Contact: William A. Cosh, 608/266‑1221
- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
International Association for Property and Evidence
“Law Enforcement Serving the Needs of Law Enforcement“
www.IAPE.org
Prosecutors charging DNA evidence with crimes
February 15, 2010The Raw Story, rawstory.com
BYLINE: Daniel Tencer
Link to Article
CA, CO, KS, NY, MO & WI
In their effort to beat the statutes of limitations that prevent people from being charged with a crime after a certain amount of time has passed, prosecutors in some parts of the US are trying a new tactic: They’re charging half-eaten food, saliva-crusted glasses or other inanimate objects with the crime.
That’s because prosecutors now have DNA evidence as a way to get around statutes of limitations. One way to make sure a criminal doesn’t get away by hiding long enough is to simply charge the DNA itself, and wait until the DNA is matched to an actual person.
Laura Bauer of the Kansas City Star reported Monday that prosecutors “in a few pockets of the country” have begun issuing “John Doe” arrest warrants that identify only a person’s unique DNA signature. Once the arrest warrant on the DNA is in place, the statute of limitations on the applicable crime will no longer run out. Bauer reports:
Since 2002, Jackson County [Missouri] prosecutors have filed 28 John Doe complaints.…
Whenever a burglary, robbery or vandalism with DNA evidence is nearing its statute of limitation, police alert [prosecutor Ted] Hunt’s office, and prosecutors file a no-name charge.
By filing these complaints, and charging the DNA instead of a named suspect, prosecutors put cases on hold until they know whose genetic fingerprint they charged. These cases otherwise wouldn’t be solved within the statute of limitations, and the suspects would be let off scot-free.
But it may be more than “a few pockets of the country” that are trying out this technique. According to the Web site of the district attorney for Denver, Colorado, “John Doe” DNA warrants have been used at least in California, Colorado, Kansas, New York and Wisconsin.
“We may have 2 1/2 years left” on the statue of limitations, Denver District Attorney Mitchell Morrissey told the KC Star. “It doesn’t matter, we file the case. … We freeze everything in place. … Otherwise, the bad guy gets away.”
Last month, the Supreme Court of California ruled that no-name warrants based on DNA evidence are allowed under state laws. According to Kelly Lowenberg at the Stanford Law School blog, the court ruled that DNA-based warrants are specific enough to be constitutional, and that they do “stop the clock running” on statutes of limitations.
But while this new crime-fighting technique may be useful to prosecutors, it raises questions about the relevance of statutes of limitations on crimes in the age of DNA. Defense attorneys argue that statues of limitations exist for a reason — if a person is charged with a crime after too long a period, it may be difficult to defend against the charges. “People’s memories fade” and “witnesses move and can’t be found,” Bauer reports at the KC Star.
“If a defendant in a property crime is arrested 20 years after the fact, based on his DNA, he’s not able to defend himself effectively,” Kansas City defense attorney J.R. Hobbs told the KC Star.
And the likelihood of the long arm of the law reaching even further grows as DNA databases in the US and around the world expand.
Last year, the FBI announced it would start collecting DNA samples from people who weren’t charged with a crime. Thus far, only people charged with an offense had their DNA taken. It’s estimated that the FBI’s database will grow at a rate of 1.2 million DNA profiles per year from now on, compared to a growth rate of about 80,000 per year prior to the new policy. The FBI already has an estimated 6.7 million DNA profiles on record.
Some civil rights advocates worry about the implications to privacy and personal freedom from a growing reliance among governments on DNA evidence. For instance, in the United Kingdom it was alleged last year that police forces were randomly arresting people simply to get their DNA on to the books. Some accused British police forces of racial profiling in that effort, noting that three-quarters of Britain’s black males under the age of 35 are now on the DNA database.
The KC Star’s Bauer notes that DNA is now being used in a much wider array of criminal investigations than has been the case in the past. While DNA testing was usually reserved for murder and rape investigations, its easy availability today means it is being used in robbery and even vandalism cases.
Denver police are so aggressive that they worked on a case in which a car window was broken and just $1.40 in coins were stolen.
A drop of blood was found on a car seat. When no match came up in the database, they went even further, checking for near-matches in what’s called a “familial DNA” search.
The name of a convicted felon came up. In the end, the felon’s brother was arrested.
- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
International Association for Property and Evidence
“Law Enforcement Serving the Needs of Law Enforcement“
www.IAPE.org
New London man gets new trial
September 29, 2009www.nbc26.com
Link to Article
Wausau, WI
WAUSAU, Wis. (AP) — A 32-year-old New London man sentenced to four years in prison for running over a pedestrian while driving drunk is getting a new trial.
The 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday the jury that convicted Michael Nollenberg had an incomplete picture of the case because of important missing evidence. The panel says the interests of justice require Nollenberg’s homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle conviction be overturned.
Nollenberg was sentenced to prison for the Sept. 24, 2005, crash that killed 22-year-old James Weber on a rural Outagamie County road.
The appeals court says the jury never heard evidence that the low beam lights on Nollenberg’s pickup truck complied with state law in illuminating the road 104 feet ahead. The jury only heard evidence that the low beams were misaligned and did not comply with federal car manufacture standards.
- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
International Association for Property and Evidence
“Law Enforcement Serving the Needs of Law Enforcement“
www.IAPE.org