MR. ASPLEN: I'll begin the introduction as folks are getting seated, in the interest of time.

I will say that, when we originally had the idea to address this issue at this particular meeting, about two months ago, I called the Director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, who has always been very helpful in this process, and I told him of our interest in Commissioner Safir's response or discussions on this matter, and he said, well, why don't you call him, and I said, well, okay, and I hung up the phone, and I did call Commissioner Safir, who was busy at the time but called me back 10 minutes later and immediately agreed to come to the Commission today and address this issue, which we do certainly appreciate, as with all our speakers.

People's schedules are exceedingly busy, and we appreciate all their time that they've taken to come and be part of this particular process.

Commissioner Safir was appointed the 39th Police Commissioner of New York by Mayor Guiliani on April 15th of '96. He's a native of The Bronx, a 26-year veteran of law enforcement and served as the city's Fire Commissioner from February '94 to April '96.

You have a rather lengthy biography on him in your introductory packet, and as such, I won't go into that anymore, but I will simply, as with the other guests, thank the Commissioner for his time, and we look forward to his comments.

MR. SAFIR: Thank you. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to all of you.

Before I get into my remarks, some of which will cover a lot of ground that this Commission knows, because you are the experts and I'm relatively new to the field of DNA, there are some things I wanted to talk about, what my proposal is not.

Mr. Steinhardt mentioned that I had proposed taking DNA samples from newborns and doing research on that information. That is a proposal that I have never made. No one has ever heard me make that, and I don't know where he got it from, but it's certainly not from me.

It is not in any way, shape, or form part of my proposal.

The other thing that few people -- that no one has heard me say is when.

This is not a proposal that I expect will be implemented tomorrow, in six months, or even in a year, but I think it is a proposal that is very important and one that needs to be talked about, debated, and one that this Commission will be very influential in shaping the discussion on.

I believe that the extensive use of DNA evidence will be the most important technological addition to police investigations in the early part of the 20th century.

As you know, I have taken a very aggressive stance concerning the future use of DNA testing. I have called for DNA profiling of all people arrested for fingerprintable offenses in New York City.

Today I would like to take a few minutes to explain to you why I believe such a policy is appropriate. I would also like you to consider in the future calling for such a policy nationally.

You also mentioned that we do not represent organizations.

I am representing the views of New York City and the New York City administration, and I did raise this issue at the recent meeting of the major city chiefs of police and am sending copies of my proposal to all major city chiefs, and it will be one of the agenda items at their meeting in June.

I also intend to raise the same issue at the executive committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, of which I am a member, at their next meeting.

As you know, DNA profiling is a relative newcomer to policing. It was first used in 1985 in England with the use of an intelligence screen to help identify a murderer. Its use has grown tremendously since then.

I believe that we should learn from the English system and adopt the relevant parts that apply to U.S. law enforcement.

I note with interest that, in 1906, one of my predecessors, Commissioner McAdoo, sent a sergeant to England to view a new system called fingerprinting and that, in 1908, the NYPD solved its first murder using fingerprints.

The British take DNA samples from nearly everyone who is arrested. To obtain the sample, they use a buckle swab.

The profiles obtained from these samples are placed in a national data bank which has about a half-million samples.

Since April of 1985, the British have linked more than 36,000 suspects to crimes, and in another 6,700 cases, they have linked one crime scene to another.

In one period last month, they linked three suspects to murder, four other suspects to suspicious deaths, and also identified nine possible rapists. Last week alone, they made 667 matches.

While addressing such violent crimes is certainly the stuff news headlines are made of, what I find more exciting in the success the British are having with property crimes.

We in policing have a good track record clearing murders. In New York, for example, we made over 800 homicide arrests last year, even though we had 629 murders.

The clearance rate for forcible rapes, which will improve with DNA testing, is over 50 percent in New York and nationally.

Our property crimes, such as burglary, grand larceny, and auto theft, have a very low clearance rate, about 14 percent nationally, and the reality is that most victims of crimes are not victims of violent crime. Most victims of crime are victims of property crime.

I mentioned we had 629 homicides in New York last year, which was the lowest in 35 years. We also reduced car theft 61 percent and burglary 43 percent, but we still had 44,000 burglaries and 47,000 car thefts.

So, most people who are affected by crime are affected by property crime.

These are the crimes for which I think DNA testing will provide the greatest assistance to the public in the long run.

Of the 36,000 suspects linked to crimes in Britain, over 20,000 were linked to burglaries and almost 5,000 were linked to auto theft.

I met with the British recently, and they told me they were beginning to have great success with getting DNA evidence off of steering wheels and doorknobs, and I think that is very exciting for law enforcement in the future.

This is the type of success we have always hoped for from fingerprints but never achieved. With DNA, we will achieve it.

The English have shown us the incredible potential DNA testing has for policing.

What I think makes the British system so successful -- and it is certainly what I have called for here in the States -- is that their law allows for DNA samples to be taken at the time of arrest, and it allows the samples to be taken from what we would typically call both felony and misdemeanor offenders.

To give you an example of why this is important, in a letter I recently received from the detective superintendent of the Humbercide police, a county in England of about 800,000 people, the superintendent noted that he had just made an arrest of a murderer using DNA technology.

The DNA sample on file that allowed for the identification was from a previous driving while intoxicated arrest.

Those of who have been in policing for most of our lives hardly find this example surprising. We know that those who commit petty crimes often go on to commit major ones. Still, when I speak to the public, it seems that this point, many people do not understand.

Some believe that it is unnecessary to take DNA samples from minor offenders, feeling that such offenses do not warrant it. Yet, I believe, in New York, we have proof, by using the broken windows theory, that most major crimes involve people who have also committed minor offenses.

By taking care of the small stuff, we take care of the larger problems.

Beyond the issue of taking DNA samples for those who commit felonies and misdemeanors, I think it's very important that we taken the samples at the time of arrest. We take fingerprints at the time of arrest, and there is no reason that we should not pass legislation to take DNA samples.

DNA samples will quickly clear the innocent as well as help us identify the guilty.

The value of testing at the time of arrest is important for a couple of reasons.

I should point out, though he's not in the room, that my interest in DNA was first sparked by Professor Scheck, who came to visit me about doing a couple of more limited projects in New York City.

We are doing those limited projects, but I think that, in the long run, we should get to what I'm proposing.

As you know, Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project, through the use of DNA testing, have cleared 59 people in the U.S. and six in the United Kingdom, most who were in jail for murders or rapes.

Based upon this experience, there are undoubtedly other innocent people currently incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. If we are taking samples at the time of arrest, these individuals would have been excluded much earlier in the investigative process.

Second, criminal justice practitioners realize that many who commit crimes are recidivists. One study by the New York State Department of Correctional Services found that close to 50 percent of those released from state custody returned within five years.

Third, financially, there would be a tremendous benefit to moving the point of testing from conviction to arrest. Savings would be realized in every step of the criminal process, including investigation, prosecution, and incarceration.

Finally, by testing at the time of arrest, we also will be able to compare other cases against the arrested person's DNA profile, just as we do with fingerprints now.

Unfortunately, our existing system does not allow this to occur.

CODIS is for convicted offenders only, with about 250,000 DNA profiles. It certainly has had some success. However, I believe it does not go far enough.

With only about 450 matches, our national system pales in comparison to the success the British are having. While the establishment of CODIS is a major step in the right direction, I believe that we need to go much further.

CODIS relies on the submissions provided by the individual states, but as you know, each state has its own laws governing the crimes for which DNA samples may be taken.

In New York, for example, we now only take DNA samples from those convicted of homicides, sex offenses, felony assaults, and some escapes.

We do not, by law, take samples from convicted burglars, even though we are sure this would help us identify other criminal acts committed by them, particularly sexual offenses and pattern burglaries.

What I have proposed in New York is that legislators give us the authority to take samples from all those arrested for fingerprintable offenses, which includes all misdemeanors in our penal law.

In many cases, by doing so, we would have the opportunity to quickly determine if the person arrested was involved in the crime for which they were charged.

We would also be able to determine if the person could be linked to other crimes for which DNA evidence is available.

To give you an example of how this would be more effective, I had my detectives examine 100 forcible rape and sodomy cases to determine how many of those arrested would be in the state's DNA data bank based on New York's existing law.

Only 18 had previous convictions for the crimes that would have made them eligible.

Looking at the same group, however, 75 would have been in the data bank under my proposal. These 75 had been arrested previously for a variety of crimes.

The greatest difficulty faced in enacting the type of law that I support has more to do with dispelling myths and educating people about DNA than with any other factor.

We must convey to the skeptics that are, in fact, adequately balancing the personal privacy rights of defendants and the rights of our citizens to live in a crime-free society.

First, we have to make it clear to people that we are not looking to create some sort of data bank that would come out of George Orwell's 1984 or the recent movie Gataca. As I have stated, we would not require blood samples. We would use a non-invasive process, the use of buckle swabs, as well as taking a look at the laser technology that was discussed before.

Further, I have heard the concern voiced that we will forcibly take samples from those we arrest. I do not instinctively advocate the use of force. Instead, I would recommend that we create a new offense that would make it a crime to refuse to provide a DNA sample.

New York's current law does not address this refusal.

Still, I recognize that some arrested will ultimately refuse to give a DNA sample because they know they have committed a heinous crime for which they may be identified.

In cases where a person refuses, even in the face of another charge for having refused, I favor the court ordering such submission and the person not being released from custody until it is provided.

I also think we must emphasize that DNA profiles on file would not reveal personality characteristics of the person arrested. I'm advised that the 13 genetic markers recently identified by the Federal DNA Advisory Board would not disclose this type of information.

Further, I want to emphasize that we do not want this kind of information. All we would be looking for is profile information that would assist us in determining whether a person was at a particular crime scene.

Still, in order to address people's concerns, I am proposing very strict measures to guard against unauthorized access to data bank information or samples.

I could not, for example, support a data-banking law similar to Alabama's that allows their data bank to be used for educational or medical research.

Part of the new law that I envision would make it a felony to even try to use the DNA sample for anything other than police investigations.

DNA profiles must be used exclusively for law enforcement identification purposes.

Secondly, I think the law has to clearly state that DNA profiles and samples must be destroyed if the suspect is acquitted or not prosecuted. We do not want a database that includes innocent people.

The British, for example, have expunged over 74,000 samples, and I think we should follow their lead.

Third, I believe that we need to work with scientists and other interested parties to establish uniform national criteria for what constitutes a match once the data bank is searched. I am aware that this is a concern to many.

In discussing matches, I also support the practice that, once a data bank hit occurs, a second sample should be obtained from the individual for a direct comparison to the crime scene profile.

Given the weight that is placed on such information, I believe we have to be sure we have the right person before we proceed with a prosecution.

Fourth, I believe we should only use accredited laboratories to perform DNA analysis, whether public or private, and in my proposal, we would be looking at probably out-sourcing intake and using public laboratories for casework.

Whether we are talking about crime scene samples or data bank samples, in using such labs, we need to be assured that vital quality control and quality assurance standards are in place.

In addition, it ensures proficiency testing, peer review, and standardized testing methodologies.

I note that the NYPD has spent $33 million recently to build a police lab that would comply with ASCLAD accreditation requirements.

I've also spoken to Governor Pataki about creating a statewide agency similar to the Forensic Science Service in England that would be used to do most of the testing for state police agencies.

Fifth, I have also heard concerns voiced that providing the police with the authority to take DNA samples at the time of arrest will lead to investigative arrests -- that is, people being arrested on less than probable cause just to obtain DNA evidence.

Such suggestions are, of course, offensive to the integrity and professionalism of police officers, and I certainly would never allow it to occur. However, institutional safeguards should also be put in place, and at the NYPD, we have developed a variety of quality assurance programs to review such things as how our offices classify crimes. I would propose a similar program to address this concern.

Next, I think that the cost of DNA testing is well worth the investment in the long term. Testing itself is not that expensive, particularly in light of the high cost of crime to victims of society. Once labs are created, which can be done commercially or by the government, testing can be done for about $50 a sample. That equates, in New York City, to about $17 million a year if we were to take all 365,000 arrestees.

Last, I think we must emphasize again that DNA testing is not a tool that violates the innocent. It has been used by defense lawyers to free many innocent people in the country from long prison terms and even death row.

Just as we in policing use it to help identify the guilty, we should also use it to quickly eliminate suspects who are innocent.

Now, in addition to asking for your support of my proposal that DNA samples be taken at the time of arrest, there are other things that I believe the Commission can do to assist those of us in law enforcement to promote and enhance the use of DNA technology in fighting crime.

While I think you know that the largest need is a financial one, there are a number of other areas where we can use your assistance.

First, we need assistance in the development of national standards for crime scene investigation and evidence collection.

As the use of DNA evidence continues to grow, we must ensure that such collection is done properly and that our officers receive the best possible training. Clearly, funding will be required for this effort.

We will also require financial and other support so that crime laboratories may keep up with the demands of analyzing crime scene samples.

While data-banking is important, it's true potential will not be realized if we are not working on crime scene cases.

We will need to work on new cases as well as old ones to address the current backlog.

In New York City, for example, I have directed my staff to review old unsolved homicides to determine if we have any biological evidence that may be submitted for DNA analysis.

We have also been working with our medical examiner's office to begin to analyze the backlog of 10,000 rape kits that currently sit in freezers in my property clerk's office.

I truly believe we have not yet begun to realize the wealth of information this old evidence contains.

Third, while I appreciate the Federal Government has made a significant financial commitment over the last several years to assist states with their convicted offender data banks, more is still necessary, particularly in analyzing the current backlog of samples.

Fourth, we require the assistance of your commission in developing training programs for DNA analysts. It often takes six months to one year to train an analyst to perform casework.

As the demand for DNA evidence and data banking continue to grow, we will need to have more scientists available to keep up with this demand.

Finally, I believe it is incumbent upon all of us who appreciate the value of this technology to engage in an educational effort both to explain the value of DNA evidence and to address public misconceptions about how law enforcement intends to use information.

I intend to continue to use my position as Police Commissioner of the City of New York to speak out on the need for the Federal Government, the states, at the state level, and certainly localities like New York City to not only continue to do research but to provide the resources necessary first to clear up the backlog, second to prove the efficacy of DNA evidence by using the information from the backlog, and then, ultimately, to get to the point of my original proposal, which is to take DNA evidence from all arrestees.

I believe that the number one civil right that exists in this country is the right to be free from crime, and I believe that DNA evidence will go a long way to having us provide that to our citizens.

Thank you.

DR. CROW: Thank you. Very clear presentation, and provocative.

MR. SMITH: I'm curious why it would be wise, in your view, not to retain the DNA profile of someone who has been arrested and tested by not convicted.

Why, from your point of view, would it be wise not to retain that?

MR. SAFIR: I think it addresses the concerns of individuals who have not committed a crime or been guilty of anything of having a permanent record in the databases, very similar to people who are found innocent of crimes who get their criminal records expunged from the criminal database.

MR. SMITH: But if somebody has a prior criminal record but no DNA sample or profile in the system and is not convicted on this crime, now what's the reason not to retain the sample?

MR. SAFIR: I don't think we can go backwards. I think we have to go forward, and I think that we're going to have enough of a logistical and legal exercise going on, going forward. I think going backwards just doesn't get you the kind of diminishing -- I think it's diminishing returns, and I think you get a lot of diminishing returns by doing that.

MR. SMITH: Do you propose to search the database for a match before the disposition of a case on which the arrest -- will you search the database before you know the disposition?

MR. SAFIR: Yes, we do.

MR. THOMA: Let me follow up on your civil libertarian response to Professor Smith's question, and let's get to the issue of cost, because we are really interested in prioritizing what we need to do with regard to the fight on crime and the use of DNA.

If I understand you, the cost of testing -- that is, taking the sample -- it would be about $50,000 a day in New York City, correct? Then we've got training cost to do this, profiling, the cataloging. Do you have any estimates as to what that costs?

MR. SAFIR: We don't have that cost yet. We're working them up now.

MR. THOMA: The other cost, this new crime for refusal to give a DNA sample, you're talking about a new type of criminal, I guess, and whether that's a person is a civil libertarian who believes that that isn't right or -- I think your version would be that they are -- they've got something to hide, so to speak.

MR. SAFIR: Well, whether they're a civil libertarian or not, under my proposal, it would be the law. So, they would be violating the law.

They wouldn't be taking -- they would be making a conscious decision to violate a law that was passed by the state legislature.

MR. THOMA: Okay. And I do appreciate your thought that Michael followed up on on the destruction of those innocent or not prosecuted, though that's a further cost, too, because that extraction from the database would be expensive, as well.

The one thing I wanted to follow up on, other than asking you the question about the cost and how we can address all of those costs with your plan and to look at the priorities as to what our backlog is as opposed to that plan -- you said that most major criminals have committed minor crimes.

I think, in my experience, that's pretty true, and I would agree with you there.

But you also said petty criminals often go on to major crimes, and I guess that depends on your definition, Commissioner, of what major crimes are.

If major crimes are as I would define them, there are 100 to 1 more often petty crimes committed than major crimes, so that it would be hard for me to understand that the petty criminal often goes on to -- see what I'm saying?

MR. SAFIR: I think you will find, if you look at most felons, that you will find minor crimes in their criminal record. I also think that -- I know I could provide hundreds of examples of serious sexual crimes, homicides, assaults that we solved based on information that we obtained at a time that a criminal was committing a minor crime.

MR. THOMA: I do appreciate that. I agreed with you that most major criminals have committed minor crimes, but your statement -- maybe we're just mincing or parsing words -- that petty criminals often go on to major crimes, you know, there are a lot more petty criminals out there than there are major crimes -- I mean in percentages, 1 percent or 2 percent.

MR. SAFIR: I think we are mincing words. I think, if you want me to clarify it, what I will say is that many of the serious felonies that are committed in this country go backwards, as well.

MR. THOMA: Okay. I appreciate that.

MR. KENNARD: If I could elaborate a little bit, Jeffrey, we consider category one or a burglary, anything that's a felony, as a more serious crime versus a shoplifter.

MR. THOMA: And I'm thinking of strike offenses, just being in California. I'm consider those.

MR. SAFIR: And another area which is very important to me here, when I talk about property crime, burglars and car thieves do that for a living. You know, after they burglarize your house, they don't go to their regular job the next day, they go on to their next burglary, and they go on to their next burglary the next day, and one of the things that excites me about DNA evidence is that we will be able to solve a lot of pattern burglars and a lot of systemic car thieves by getting DNA evidence from many of these crime scenes.

MR. THOMA: Saying that we can't get fingerprints but we can get DNA from those scenes? Is that what you're saying?

MR. SAFIR: That is often our experience.

DR. REILLY: I, too, appreciated the clarity of your remarks.

One of the things I think many of us learn through life is that everything is a matter of timing.

Given the concerns that seem to be uniformly shared by people in this room, in particular the backlog, the training problem, the problem that many labs are not set up yet to do the work, would you -- and mindful of your very clear agenda of making DNA analysis a central feature in law enforcement, which I think you said loud and clear, would it not make more sense to say that your currently articulated position could wisely be delayed for approximately five years while you build up the necessary foundations that you yourself have articulated to be a need so that you would be -- in the end have a much more robust system to operate?

MR. SAFIR: I'm not prepared to concede five years. I think that's the typical Federal Government way of looking at things, five years down the road, when most of the people who are currently in the Federal Government aren't there.

I think it's very important that we move with as quick dispatch as possible in a reasonable manner.

Now, as you heard me say, I think it's very important that we develop the capacity to do that. I'm not sure it's going to take five years to do that. I think it's very important that we have the right labs, train the right people, get the right laws passed, and have the funding in place.

There's just no reason, in my mind, that that should take five years.

DR. REILLY: What do you think would be a realistic timeframe to accomplish the goals that you envision?

MR. SAFIR: I think the Department of Justice and the Attorney General has to take the lead on this. I think they have to lay out a program, they have to consult with state or local officials, and put together a program that is a real definitive program moving forward, not just a study program.

MR. GAINER: Commissioner, have you begun in New York to prepare your incoming officers and your current officers and detectives and crime scene processors to specifically attack crime scenes with a view towards collecting more DNA evidence?

MR. SAFIR: Our crime scene people do that now. What we're in the process of doing is we are training some special evidence collection teams in the local precincts, and they will be doing some pilot projects to see how they do, and in fact, we've been working with Professor Scheck on just that issue.

MR. GAINER: And your pilot -- is that in the property crimes area, in auto theft and burglary, as you mentioned?

MR. SAFIR: It will be in burglary, yes.

MR. GAHN: How many people daily are arrested in New York?

MR. SAFIR: A little more than a thousand.

MR. GAHN: Let's say you take buckle swabs from a thousand.

What do you envision as the turn-around time that you'll have a profile and download that into your case index? From the moment of arrest, with the swab, how soon are you going to -- how soon do you want to get that into your data bank and downloaded?

MR. SAFIR: We would certainly want it into the data bank as soon as possible, but the only people who are really doing this in a massive way are the English, and it takes them about two weeks to get theirs into the system.

However, they can also do priority samples in 24 hours.

MR. GAHN: And you said that you believe that New York would out-source?

MR. SAFIR: I think the intake we would probably out-source. I think it makes much more sense to have our people working on casework.

MR. GAHN: And to date, how large is your case index?

MR. SAFIR: I can't give you a specific figure but in the multiple thousands.

MR. CLARKE: Actually, there are some analogs, high-volume analogs in forensics, blood-alcohol level samples or drug cases and so on, with very fast turn-around time requirements.

Nationwide, more popularly being instituted are what are called fast-track narcotics programs, where there is literally a drug chemistry answer within 48 hours, and the whole idea is to get those cases out of the system as soon as possible.

So, I don't think there's any technological bar. Certainly, economic may be the more important one, but there's certainly no technological bar to producing answers quickly, and we have several obvious predecessors to that.

MR. SAFIR: As you know, technology is changing daily in this area, and each day, the timeframe decreases as technology moves forward. So, I don't think that should certainly be a bar to us going forward.

DR. FERRARA: Commissioner Safir, would I be correct in assuming that, when you're dealing with 1,000 arrests a day in New York City, that a significant portion of those individuals are re-arrested repeatedly.

MR. SAFIR: That's right.

DR. FERRARA: Have you considered a system -- establishing a system within New York City that would allow you, upon arrest of an individual, to identify if that person has already been tested and thereby reduce the actual number of samples that you're contemplating?

MR. SAFIR: In reality, that's exactly what would happen, and we have looked at that, and certainly, that would be part of the program, but what I think is important is for us to look at the worst possible case scenario as far as the numbers.

MR. KENNARD: Commissioner, referring back to what Philip had suggested on a timeframe, if this recommendation from this commission were to go to the Attorney General and were to fashion something after the COPS program -- I'm sure you participated in that --

MR. SAFIR: Yes, indeed.

MR. KENNARD: -- as most of us here in this room in law enforcement, do you think that would be an acceptable timeframe, of the two to three years, in that timeframe, of what we have in the COPS program?

MR. SAFIR: I think absolutely. I think that, you know, two to three years is more realistic from my viewpoint, and I think, certainly, as all of you know better than I, this is a resource issue, it's not a technological issue.

MR. SMITH: In New York, it may still be so that very many people as to whom the police department has probable cause for an arrest are given citations instead, at the precinct, I guess.

MR. SAFIR: Desk appearance tickets.

MR. SMITH: Desk appearance tickets.

MR. SAFIR: We still fingerprint them.

MR. SMITH: You fingerprint them. But you would contemplate, I think, then, doing the buckle swab before release for those purposes.

MR. SAFIR: Right. And when we give somebody a desk appearance ticket now, we do not release them until their fingerprints come back.

MR. SMITH: So, you'd be looking for the return on the DNA before you released them, as well.

MR. SAFIR: I'm not sure about that. I mean that's something we would have to look at.

MR. SMITH: Okay. A related question -- and I'm thinking aloud, really, as I listen to you, but if the legal standard that distinguishes those persons who are in the pool of persons arrested in New York from the rest of us is the police department having probable cause to make an arrest, discretionary decision with you whether to make that arrest, just thinking it logically through, why wouldn't it then be okay and desirable to take buckle swabs for everybody as to whom you have probably cause rather than to go to the trouble of making the arrest?

MR. SAFIR: I think the arrest has to be the predicate.

MR. SMITH: Why? If you have probable cause to arrest somebody, why wouldn't that be sufficient?

MR. SAFIR: I'm not understanding what you're saying. If I have probable cause to arrest somebody, I then arrest them.

MR. SMITH: No, no, no. Plenty of people you've got probable cause to arrest you don't arrest.

MR. SAFIR: No, what I'm saying is, if I'm not arresting him, I'm not arresting him for any law enforcement purpose.

MR. SMITH: Okay. And collecting a DNA sample would be a law enforcement purpose, though, right?

MR. SAFIR: Yes. And the other part of that is, in most of our desk appearance tickets, which I should tell you we have limited tremendously, there's a requirement that the person be properly identified, there's a requirement that we believe that we'll be able to find that individual again, and it's a very clear process, and there are not a lot of them, so it's a much smaller universe.

MR. SMITH: I realize that desk appearance tickets are sort of the in-between category, but I think it's got to be true that not everybody as to whom you have probable cause to make an arrest for a misdemeanor, for example, is, in fact, arrested or given a desk appearance ticket, but they're all in the category of persons distinguished from the rest of us by having the attributes that would permit you to make an arrest.

MR. SAFIR: Right. But my view is, if we don't arrest them, then we shouldn't take their sample.

MR. SMITH: Okay.

MR. GAINER: Commissioner, to clarify, because there's been a lot of conversation about how long it might take to get a classification back on the DNA, in your proposal you are open to the concept that if technology is not developed that permits a quick turn-around, maybe something akin to the hour or two or three that we're getting down on prints, that you would be open to the release on bond in the normal course of things before it came back.

MR. SAFIR: Sure. I am in no way suggesting that we require detention until we get back our results.

MR. GAINER: Thanks.

DR. CROW: Let me see if any of the others who spoke today have anything they'd like to add at this stage, or questions to ask.

[No response.]

MR. THOMA: I really appreciated your whole presentation. I think it articulates your position a lot better than I had known it previously.

MR. ASPLEN: We were going to ask you before you left if we could get a copy of your remarks.

MR. SAFIR: Absolutely.

DR. CROW: All right. Thank you very much.

[Applause.]

Previous	Contents	Next
Back to National Commission Main Page