Local law enforcement officials, compelled by an initiative passed in November to collect additional DNA samples for use in solving major crimes, are scrambling to find lab sites and train employees to handle the expected increase.

Proposition 69 requires local police and sheriff’s departments to collect DNA samples from convicted felons, some misdemeanor convicts and felons already in prison, on parole or probation. By 2009, anyone arrested on felony charges must submit a sample; the existing requirement involves only convicted sex offenders, murderers and attempted murderers.

While the use of DNA has proven effective in solving crimes by comparing samples in a state database to those taken at crime scenes, the broadened requirements mean tens of thousands of new samples.

“It’s quite honestly an overwhelming task for us,” said Capt. Patrick Findley, commanding officer of the jail division of the Los Angeles Police Department. “We’re trying to take on a responsibility that really needs to be implemented now, but yet there aren’t the supplies to do it at this time, or the procedures.”

Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Lisa Kahn, head of the office’s forensic sciences division, said that after an initial surge in DNA samples the statewide database should level out at about 1.2 million samples in 2008 or 2009.

“Historically, most criminals are recidivists,” she said. “Once they’re in, they’re in.”

Training issues

The LAPD, which arrests more than 300 people on felony charges each day, has identified space at its aging Parker Center headquarters as one collection center, as well as locations at its seven area jails. Each location must include video-monitoring systems to ensure arrestees are not abused in the swabbing process.

Further, detention officers and clerical staff must be trained in how to take samples, which involves swabbing an individual’s mouth and sealing the sample in a purse-sized baggie to be sent to the state’s Department of Justice.

On the county level, bailiffs or deputy sheriffs must be trained in how to administer the swabs to the nearly 300 individuals who get released without ever ending up in jail, said Capt. Tony Argott, who works at the county’s inmate reception center.

One procedural issue still unresolved is how to obtain samples from individuals who refuse to cooperate, Kahn said. Another issue: destroying samples from arrestees who have no prior felony record and whose case was dismissed.

“Our main concern right now is the fact that there isn’t a good mechanism to get our clients out of the database once they’re in,” said Jennifer Friedman, a Los Angeles deputy public defender and forensic sciences coordinator. “If an individual is acquitted or their case is not filed, or dismissed, his DNA sample should be automatically expunged from the database.”

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit last month arguing that Prop 69 is unconstitutional, particularly in the cases of people who are compelled to supply DNA samples and are later found innocent as well as for convicted felons who have served their time.

Expanding facilities

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the LAPD each have one main crime lab, though ground was broken earlier this month on a $96 million crime lab on the campus of Cal State L.A. The facility, to be shared by city and county law enforcement, is the region’s first new crime lab to be built in decades.

Known as the Regional Forensic Crime Lab, it was designed to alleviate overcrowding at existing labs and avoid costly outsourcing of DNA tests. Funded with an appropriation from the 2000-01 state budget, the new lab was championed by Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca but suffered years of delays after District Attorney Steve Cooley and then-interim L.A. Police Chief Martin Pomeroy argued over personnel and space allocations.

Originally anticipated to open in 2005, the lab should begin operating in about 18 months.

Proposition 69 will reimburse local governments for the procedures through a variety of measures. Funding for the state databank includes a $7 million loan from the state’s 2005-06 budget, followed by a 10 percent increase in financial penalties levied by the county for local criminal offenses and vehicle code violations (excluding traffic fines). Kahn estimated those penalties could generate $20 million to $25 million per year.

During the first two years, while the database is being created, the state’s Treasury Department would retain 70 percent of the money collected through those fines. By the fourth year, only 25 percent would go to the state. The remaining money would go to reimburse local officials.

Excess revenue may bring an additional $1 million to offset costs at the Regional Forensic Crime Lab, said Capt. Chris Beattie, who works in the scientific services bureau of the Sheriff’s Department.