Under Iowa bill, DNA could be collected from people arrested, but not yet convicted

DES MOINES — Iowa law enforcement would be required to collect DNA from individuals arrested on felony or aggravated misdemeanor charges under legislation proposed by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and considered by lawmakers on Wednesday, which is drawing privacy concerns from legal justice advocates.

Bird introduced the proposal, along with a slate of enhanced protections for crime victims, in December, in hopes that expanded DNA collection would help Iowa law enforcement in solving cold cases.

“It's very important that in Iowa, no one gets away with murder, and that victims and survivors know we are always looking for the person who did this, and we will fully investigate and bring them to justice,” Bird said during an Iowa House subcommittee meeting Wednesday.

House Study Bill 571, which was advanced out of an Iowa House Judiciary subcommittee Wednesday, would require that DNA collected from individuals arrested on felony or aggravated misdemeanor charges be uploaded into the Combined DNA Index System, or CODIS, the FBI’s database that allows state, local and federal forensic laboratories to exchange and compare DNA profiles.

Currently in Iowa, DNA is collected only after someone is convicted of a crime.

The legislation is dubbed “Katie’s Law,” for Katie Sepich, a 22-year-old New Mexico graduate student who was killed in 2003.

Sepich’s case remained unsolved for three years despite the presence of DNA evidence under her fingernails, before her killer, Gabriel Avila, was caught. Three months after Sepich was killed, Avila was arrested and charged with a different crime.

His DNA was eventually matched to the murder, for which he was sentenced to 69 years in prison. But supporters of Katie’s Law argue that yearslong gaps like in Sepich’s case could be closed if DNA is collected before someone is convicted of a crime.

The law faced legal challenges over privacy concerns before being upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013. It now is a law in more than 30 states across the country.

Bird said Iowans may request expungement of their DNA sample from the database if their charges are dropped or if their aggravated misdemeanor or felony charge is not filed within one year of their arrest.

  Buy Photo

But legal justice advocates, including Lisa Davis-Cook representing the Iowa Association for Justice, said collecting someone’s DNA without a conviction is a violation of privacy.

“We don't know who this is going to be shared with. Is this going to be shared ... nationwide? Is it going to be shared with neighboring states? We just don't know how far we're letting Iowans' private health information, private DNA, go out across the country,” Davis-Cook said.

Former Iowa Association for Justice president Jake Feuerhelm expressed concerns about the expungement process, arguing that it should be automatic rather than having the burden to expunge DNA from a database fall on those who have their charges dropped.

Tony Phillips, representing the Iowa State Sheriffs’ and Deputies’ Association, said the legislation would provide an additional tool to law enforcement to solve cold cases.

Republican Iowa Reps. Hans Wilz, of Ottumwa, and Judd Lawler, of Tiffin, signed on to advance the legislation. While Lawler said the bill could provide another tool to law enforcement in solving cold cases, he noted his concerns over Iowans’ privacy rights.

  Buy Photo

“This is part of a larger discussion that we need to keep having as ... better and better investigative technology becomes available to us,” Lawler said. “But whether it's DNA or it's license plate readers, we still have to think about people's privacy interests, Fourth Amendment rights.”

Democratic Rep. Angel Ramirez, of Cedar Rapids, said she was worried the DNA collection could negatively affect people who have familial connections to individuals who have been convicted of crimes.

Bird acknowledged that while law enforcement can gain leads for cases from familial DNA, those links alone are not conclusive, as law enforcement has to undertake other steps and gather other evidence. She pointed to the case of Michelle Martinko, of Cedar Rapids, whose 1979 murder remained unsolved until an arrest was made in 2018 using genetic genealogy.

The bill also appropriates $600,000 to the Iowa Attorney General’s Office Cold Case Unit.

Enhanced protections for crime victims

Bird also introduced a legislative package aimed at protecting crime victims, including provisions that would allow victims of sex crimes to get a lifetime-long no-contact order and would shorten the time period sex offenders have to notify sheriffs of changes in residence, work and vehicle from five days to three days.

House Study Bill 570, which was advanced out of a House Judiciary subcommittee on Wednesday, also would allow crime victim counselors to share information with law enforcement if there's an imminent risk of serious harm to a victim or to someone else.

Laura Hessburg, representing the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said allowing counselors to share information without the consent of victims would harm confidentiality and make victims less likely to confide in them.

“Although it's intended to address limited situations, this creates confusion about when the law applies and because it is in a statute, then it would result in counselors disclosing confidential client information more often because they fear they would violate the failure to disclose,” Hessburg said.

Gina Messamer, a Des Moines criminal defense attorney who works frequently with crime victims, expressed concern that establishing lifelong protective orders would infringe on personal liberties if the person no longer poses a threat to the victim.

“I often see in my criminal cases where no-contact orders can be abused in like family law issues, you know, you can have a situation where you're not able to see your kids because they're somehow under this protective order,” Messamer said. “So just extending these forever and not having any kind of standard for when it's appropriate to still have it, that can be a big problem for people.”

Rep. Craig Williams, R-Manning, and Wilz signed on to advance the legislation while Ramirez declined to do so.