In 1994, New Jersey enacted a law requiring DNA samples from anyone convicted of certain serious offenses, such as sex crimes, kidnapping or murder.
In 2003, New Jersey enacted a law requiring DNA samples from anyone convicted of any indictable offense.
Last year, Gov. Chris Christie signed yet another new law requiring DNA samples from anyone arrested on suspicion of committing certain violent crimes.
And now, Sen. Nicholas J. Sacco, D-North Bergen, has introduced a bill to require DNA samples from anyone convicted of a disorderly persons offense. These are lesser, nonindictable offenses, popularly called misdemeanors, such as shoplifting, trespassing and criminal mischief.
Ever hear the phrase “slippery slope”? We’re on one here, folks. And that’s exactly what critics of expanded DNA sampling have been warning about.
In 18 years, New Jersey has gone from requiring DNA samples from people who actually committed serious, violent offenses, to requiring samples from people convicted of any indictable offense, to requiring samples from people merely suspected of committing a serious offense.
And now Sacco wants shoplifters’ DNA?
Why not just collect DNA from every baby born in the state? (Actually, there’s also a bill in the Legislature that would do exactly that.)
There’s no doubt that DNA is an effective, legitimate tool for solving current crimes, cracking cold cases – and for exonerating the innocent. We have no problem with requiring DNA samples from people convicted of violent crimes.
We’re troubled by the newer law requiring DNA samples from people who have merely been arrested. People are wrongfully arrested all the time.
And, it’s important to note, New Jersey already had and continues to have a sensible state law that provides a way for police to go before a judge and obtain a warrant for a suspect’s DNA.
Suspects, of course, are innocent until proven guilty. And requiring them to provide a DNA sample is far more intrusive than taking their fingerprints. DNA contains medical and genetic information that can be misused in ways that fingerprints cannot.
But back to Sacco’s bill, which is the clearest example yet of overreach. Disorderly persons offenses are the kind of minor accusations handled in municipal court. And it’s not uncommon for these charges to be frivolous.
For example, on the same day last week that newspapers ran stories about Sacco’s bill, the Asbury Park Press reported that Cedric Calero, an 18-year-old freshman at Brookdale Community College, had been charged with stealing a cup of ice from the school cafeteria.
The charges were dropped Friday. But under Sacco’s bill, if Calero had been convicted, he would have been required to provide a DNA sample that would go into the national FBI database.
Does that sound right to anyone?
Press of Atlantic City editorial