Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, March 5, 1991 TAG: 9103050464
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
U.S. District Judge James Turk dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by inmates who argued that the blood sampling violated their constitutional right to privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
DNA is a molecule found in chromosomes that carry the body's genetic information, which is even more unique than fingerprints. The genetic information in bodily fluids found at crime scenes can be compared with samples in the DNA data bank.
Virginia created the first state-run DNA laboratory in the country and is one of 11 states requiring DNA typing of all or certain classes of felons. Attorneys said the lawsuit was the first challenge to the testing.
The law allowing the DNA analysis and typing of inmates' blood went into effect July 1, 1990.
Turk said the validity of a search is determined by balancing the government's interest against the privacy interest of the individual being searched.
The judge said the inmates' "limited interest in withholding a blood sample is outweighed by the substantial state interest in deterring and detecting recidivist acts."
Assistant Attorney General Mark Davis said the testing was justified because statistics show a large percentage of Virginia's inmates commit violent crimes after they are released.
"The commonwealth and its citizens face a substantial risk of harm if any inmate is released from confinement without providing a blood sample and having it tested and placed in the DNA data bank," Davis said during a hearing in October.
"This is good news for law enforcement in Virginia," Attorney General Mary Sue Terry said. "DNA is probably the most important crime-fighting tool since fingerprints, and we are very pleased that Judge Turk upheld our Virginia statute."
Attorneys from the University of Virginia Post-Conviction Assistance Project, representing the inmates, said law enforcement authorities have to have a reason to believe someone committed a crime before seeking genetic information.
Law professor Hal Krent said he was "quite disappointed" by the ruling.
Krent said the worst part of the decision is that the judge permitted testing of approximately 10 percent of the 13,000 inmates who committed non-violent crimes - such as embezzlement, tax evasion, check fraud and traffic offenses.
The state acknowledged that it had no statistical basis for testing certain classes of non-violent offenders, Krent said.
"These people have no more statistical chance of committing a violent crime than you or I," Krent said. "I'm concerned that future legislators could require everybody to participate in this DNA databank under the theory that it's just a minimal intrusion."
Turk pointed out that inmates coming into the prison system already have to give blood for health-related tests.
However, Turk did agree with the inmates' attorneys on one point. The judge said the state cannot use the new law to hold inmates beyond their parole release date if they refuse to submit to a blood test.
Turk said the state should get a separate order requiring an inmate to submit to a blood test before being released.
by CNB