[9:00 a.m.]

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: I will call the Commission to order.

What we will do is pick up some matters that were left hanging yesterday. According to my notes, we have three, and we can do any others that any of the Commissioners want.

We have the PERF survey, the arrestee issue, and the law enforcement pamphlet. I think Chris said he drafted up a one-pager as a suggestion and it will be available soon.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: We're just having it printed and copied right now.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Okay. So we'll start with the PERF survey. Christopher?

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: When we left yesterday, there was a considerable discussion about the value and benefit of it. I thought, in speaking to a number of Commissioners last night, I think that we may have kind of gelled the issue a little bit.

In speaking to Commissioner Gahn, the concern was that the numbers that would be generated based on the criteria listed on the form that you have from PERF would not necessarily be accurate or reflective of the true nature of the non-suspect backlog, but rather the way to identify a more accurate at least subset of the problem would be to ask law enforcement officers or agencies just about their rape kits or the sexual assault kits that they have in storage and are not submitting and why they are not submitting those.

The discussion around dinner last night was that that may be, again, a more tangible, more accurate number, from which we can, to some extent, extrapolate and say and these are just the rape cases, number one, and these are just the rape cases with kits, et cetera.

But at least what we'd be working from is a base of a more accurate figure. So the suggestion was to go back to PERF and say we're not interested in all of this stuff. All we're interested in is this particular question, concentrate on rape kits, and that would be more accurate.

The other suggestion was that we find a way to capture input from more of the smaller jurisdictions, as PERF concentrates primarily on the larger jurisdictions over 200 or 400,000, something like that. So we would also do that.

There was a suggestion by one of the representatives here from Eastern Kentucky that maybe they could participate in that, also, as that's part of their expertise, is the smaller jurisdictions.

So how do we feel about that?

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I'll second.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Are you comfortable with that, Chief?

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Any further discussion? Does that meet your objections, Norm?

COMMISSIONER GAHN: I think it will give us a more meaningful number.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Hearing no further discussion, we'll take a vote. Those in favor, say aye.

[Chorus of ayes.]

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Any opposed?

[No response.]

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: It's unanimous of the Commissioners present. So that's PERF. So that will be written and finances will be redone.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: The next issue I've got is arrestee; that is, the issue is Attorney General Reno wanted our views on getting DNA samples from arrestees, and that raises two issues at least; one, legal, and, two, practical. Right?

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Or one practical and two legal.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: That's probably the correct order. So we are scheduled to send her a letter by August 1.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: We heard a discussion about the legal issues from Michael Smith and David Kaye yesterday and it would be my suggestion, but it's open to discussion, that the letter indicate that we are studying the legal issues, but that in light of the big backlog of convicted persons, the perhaps lack of samples from those on probation and parole now and that we have, and maybe by then we'll know, large numbers of non-suspect cases that haven't been tested, that as a practical matter, dealing with arrestees at this time is impractical and that it's just simply too much money and not enough workers.

So that's what I would propose the letter might be.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: The only thing I would add is what we talked about regarding Sheriff Kennard, if there is a jurisdiction that doesn't have a backlog and really doesn't have a large number of old samples, that would impact negatively on the laboratories, that they should feel free to go ahead and get -- or they shouldn't feel constrained by our statements.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: On the practical level, but at the legal issue, the Commission has to reach any decisions or recommendations.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: I'd like to add a little addition to that, and that is that any jurisdiction in the United States that does inaugurate a program of this type, it should be viewed as a demonstration project, studied as such, the results analyzed, and then the results disseminated by whatever agency is best equipped to disseminate such information, such as NIJ.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Chief?

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I thought the -- I guess maybe I just had the sense that the consensus was that we all thought that it was probably a good idea, that we thought we should prioritize. The same with the legal issues.

Just my feeling is that you should, in command, you should command and beg forgiveness, not ask for permission. I firmly believe that the message that we should send to the Attorney General is that we believe that that's where we should be going and that eventually that that's where it's going to wind up and that's where it ought to wind up.

I would just ask that we word this letter in some fashion to prioritize those things, identify the things, that it's really not very practical to do immediately, but it is something that we should be working towards.

I also think that there should be some consideration with the legal issues as to how we can enter the information in the database or actually access the database. I just believe that this is an opportunity for us to identify offenders that we ought not pass up on. My concern is that if we write the letter to where we're saying that it's just something that should be happening, we're encouraging other people to do it on their own, then I don't think we're doing what we should be doing as a Commission, in that I honestly believe that it's something we should be working towards.

I had the sense, listening to everybody yesterday, that we all kind of thought it was a good idea, we just didn't think it was doable right now, and even if we decided we wanted to do it right now, it would take us a couple years to implement it, just because of the complications of hiring and training the people and doing all that stuff. But I would hate to see us send a letter to the Attorney General that was weak-kneed in any way and with reference to where we'd like to see this thing to eventually.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Jan.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: I'm not sure that we've established a consensus that that's where we want to go, although I happen to think it's a good idea.

I think the problem -- what you're suggesting is that we should talk about addressing the national legislation, because CODIS requires convicted samples. Is that what you're saying? So somehow that ought to be one of our missions.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Actually, what I'm saying is that in the priority things, that we've got things set up and the backlog is the most important thing, and how are you going to do a good job with this other if you don't, but to somehow send a message that we don't think that fingerprinting or DNA testing of all arrestees is not important, I think, is the wrong message.

That's not the message I want to send. I understand I'm only one vote, but if that's how it goes, then I certainly will just vote no and be happy.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: If I could, from a procedural standpoint, I think one of the things that we hope to accomplish by kind of breaking out the two or maybe even really three issues this way was to kind of send the initial statement which raises the level of discussion on the practical implications. It also has -- and it gets a recommendation to the AG by the August -- and an important one -- by the August deadline.

What it also does, however, I think, and I'm sure that Professor Smith and Professor Kaye would appreciate this, I think it then gives some time to further the analysis of the other two issues, which are kind of the pure legal issues and then what are the other privacy considerations, how do we ensure the privacy of the system.

So I'm not sure that by making a statement today of noticing the concern about the financial commitment to arrestees necessarily excludes the ability to later, if the Commission decides to actually advocate for taking DNA from arrestees in the future, because I don't think that it was intended that that issue be decided today.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: We have another problem. We don't have as many Commissioners as we ordinarily have and we have no one here from the defense side.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: That's great.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Strike that from the record. So as a procedural matter, we have that problem. But we shouldn't put anything in the letter that would indicate a pregnant negative that is we're saying that that shouldn't be done, because I don't think that is a consensus yet.

COMMISSIONER CROW: I think this is repetitious, but I think we shouldn't say too much about the future, two years and hence. I'm worried about the attack that is almost certain to come from other groups about this issue, the fact that you've got this backlog, we've got to take care of that first. It lets us sort of off the hook.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I guess another thing is seeing that the question has been offered to the public for debate and Commissioner Safert's comments and the Attorney General directing us to respond to it, I mean, to me, it seems like we just do an injustice if we don't say -- and maybe I'm just in the minority, but I believe that it's important.

I believe that eventually it's going to happen and that it ought to happen and if all it is is for identification, then maybe it's not nearly as important, but I'd like to see it. I just, in my mind, cannot accept the fact that I have a chance to run her DNA, when I've charged her with criminal damage to property, and find out that she murdered somebody in California, that just -- my mind can't get around that.

To me, everything that was said yesterday about the numbers of people that commit smaller crimes and then eventually go on to the more violent crimes, it seems to me like we're saying to ourselves we know that if we could identify those people early on -- at dinner, I used the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. You mean to tell me that if we could have found out, we might have saved 15 or 20 people from dying, and how do you get your mind around that, and that's the problem I have. That's why I feel so strongly about that, the arrestees and the fact of being able to compare them against the database.

COMMISSIONER CROW: I guess I agree with everything you've just said.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Norm.

COMMISSIONER GAHN: I think the way you could couch the letter to address that issue -- but I still think we have to be somewhat -- or it would be prudent to be a bit neutral on -- I mean, we can say that that issue is out there of arrestees and it's something that -- it is going that way and eventually -- we know that. Arrestees are going to be taken, it's going to evolve into that.

But it's not going to do you any good unless all your states have their case index up to date. Unless you have all those unsolved, non-suspect cases into a case index, what sense does it take to run anyone, an arrestee, unless that backlog is up to date, and that's how I think we should present it.

Yet, we're not discounting arrestees, but the practical aspect is that until every non-suspect case is in the case index, every foreign profile is in that index, at that point, we want to get all the arrestees and then run them against that.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Michael.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I don't disagree that we might very well end up where you say we will shortly, but I'm not sure that that's the best solution to the problem that you raise. One of the things that we haven't fully discussed, I sense a reluctance to discuss it, is that if we take that point of yours, which I do, then we have, I think, no particular reason substantively to want to limit our ability to check a crime scene DNA sample to a databank of arrestees.

Jan hasn't been arrested yet and I'd hate to have to arrest her just to get her in the databank, if the most expensive databank is what we really want.

So I have a feeling we ought to discuss that issue more frontally before settling on a policy of arrestee collection, which will be a tremendous commitment of political and financial resources, when another course might be better.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Certainly we would agree that we need to discuss these issues much more fully and philosophically.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: It's hard to disagree.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Chris indicates that we will have to, at least if we answer the Attorney General's letter, we will have to deal with the privacy and the legal issues in greater depth, so that all we have to do is say, at this time, the practical stuff.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: A no, yes and a maybe.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Which will fit the discussion yesterday, with the yes and the maybe.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Are you contemplating a letter now and a full response in August, is that what you're suggesting, or is it a letter in August and a full response in the year 2000?

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Mine would be a letter by August and the fuller response afterwards, because I just don't think you're going to be ready.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: That's great, if we can do that.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: I thought you might like that scenario.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: I just don't see it. Now, I'm trying to be practical, having gone through the post-conviction. It just takes a while for these things to sift and winnow through the Commission and looking at drafts, and I thought the last one came out very well.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I'm delighted to hear that.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Well, that's my view. I don't know that's the Attorney General's view and I don't know that's the NIJ's view and I don't know that's the Commissioners' views, but I'm trying to be practical. We're almost into June, from my perspective, and that doesn't give us -- June and July doesn't give us very much time. So I'm just trying to be realistic, I think.

I'm hoping the Attorney General will be pleased with the first step and that is one that's immediate, but the others are, from my perspective, longer-ranged, but we'll see.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: How are we going to find out how the Attorney General feels about this? Can we do that in the relatively near future?

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Well, I think so, for a couple of reasons. Number one, we already -- since we have sent up the first recommendation regarding the CODIS backlog, I don't know if that has actually hit her desk or not, it has hit everybody else's desk up the chain, but when that occurs, we can anticipate some kind of response in that regard.

If we send this letter and/or a letter and recommendation, again, I think that that should probably generate an opportunity to gauge whether or not she is, in fact, pleased or not.

But the other thing I think that would be of value for us to do, and we could do this before August, is to send a gentleman named John Bentivoglio, who is her Chief Privacy Officer and who is really the one that suggested that the Commission take on this role, send him our preliminary reports, the report that Professor Kaye has already written, et cetera, keep him continually informed, so he can also communicate the progress to her.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: If that would be okay with Professor Kaye, that would be a good idea.

MR. KAYE: That would be fine. I've already made some revisions and I will e-mail them out.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: It's a work in progress, right?

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: And we have a very big draft stamp that we put on everything.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Good.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: If I could ask this question. This morning, in discussions about exactly what procedure to follow with this particular recommendation, it was suggested that we actually do both and send a letter through the National Institute of Justice, as we did the original CODIS recommendation, but also a letter from the Chief Justice directly to the Attorney General, saying we have received your request of us and the first response, given the work we've already done on the backlog issues, indicates to us that the first statement needs to be made regarding the financial infrastructure, laboratory infrastructure, so we really take two paths up to that point, if that's acceptable.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: That's good.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: And as I understand it, the letter and the recommendation would include that, number one, there is no position at this time regarding whether we should or we shouldn't; however, we will address that issue more thoroughly in the future.

Secondly, that the case -- that in any event, for those states or local agencies that are considering doing this, the case index must be up to date if the individual states want to pursue it, that that should be a minimum standard, and that any attempt to do arrestee testing must be accompanied by appropriate full financial support. We can't have this being done under unfunded mandates.

And that the letter should be used to highlight the convicted offender backlog, highlight the offender backlog and the non-suspect case backlog. Does that accurately reflect --

COMMISSIONER SMITH: The language of "should" and "must" and all of that just strikes me as a little foreign to what we were talking about yesterday, and I'm not sure --

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: I wouldn't use "must" at all. I'd say should be considered.

COMMISSIONER CROW: Have you got it in there that you don't want to discourage both the communities from experimenting with this?

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Well, we don't want to encourage them either.

COMMISSIONER CROW: That's right.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Maybe we don't want to say anything either way.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Since we haven't decided anything on privacy.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: We are split at this point about that.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I can't imagine that individual states listen to anything we said anyhow.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Can we adjourn?

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: No. The Attorney General cares what we say, but I can't imagine the sheriff in Salt Lake City is going to make his decisions based upon what this Commission recommends, until there is legislation that requires it, I would think.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I'm not so sure I agree.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Well, we'll see.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Yes, we will.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: And that's fine, because we don't bind them, you're right, Chief, and that's good.

Between Christopher and myself, the letter will incorporate the views of the Commission, of course, but I'm like the advocate, as the judge, you don't like to use words like "must" or "should" in talking to the Attorney General. I prefer the Federal Government might consider or think about. So I just want to assure you that it will be in that kind of tone.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: It's an interesting relationship. When I write something as a prosecutor, then it comes back with the appropriate judicial amendments. Rest assured.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: It will state the Commission's view, but it will be couched in words of "you might consider, Attorney General." And these are recommendations. They are not orders or instructions and she is not bound by them.

All right. That deals with -- is that a general consensus? Do we agree on that approach for the moment? And we'll try and make sure that it does not indicate that we are either opposed or favor arrestee, and this is not the time to do it.

All right. I see a lot of nodding of heads at the table, so I will view that as a consensus. Not the Chief's head, but he remains silent, so I accept that as a general affirmation.

You want a vote on this. All right. Mr. Asplen would like a vote on that. Do you have a list of the Commissioners here? Okay. So if I -- well, we can start with Mr. Crow, Dr. Crow.

COMMISSIONER CROW: Aye.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Chief Sanders.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Aye.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Thank you. Ms. Bashinski.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Aye.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Woody.

COMMISSIONER CLARKE: Aye.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Norm.

COMMISSIONER GAHN: Aye.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Mike.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Aye.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Aye.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: Aye.

COMMISSIONER TURMAN: Aye.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Aye. All right. Thank you.

Now, are we ready for our next issue on the law enforcement?

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Yes, we are. When we left yesterday, we talked about what would accompany the pamphlet to the Attorney General to kind of define the issue and try to make the point that it is less the pamphlet than it is the effort to communicate the information to every law enforcement officer, to try to create a national competency, if you will, on these issues.

This is something that I typed last night, after dinner, and a little bit this morning. As such, any comments are very welcome and I take offense at nothing. So why don't you take a few minutes to take a look at it and then see what we need to do from there.

My guess is that the actual recommendation needs to include more.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: Chris, I think the only comment that I would have is that I read through the Kansas report from Terry Knowles and it struck me as really being indicative of what probably goes in most of the country and it's a really good shot at the United States system as compared to the British system as far as, you know, we use it as, like we say here, a confirmatory tool and not for its capabilities, whereas in Great Britain they use it as a really strong investigative tool, a comprehensive tool throughout the whole system.

I think this sends that message. I don't know if we could even send it stronger.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Chris doesn't know how to deal with a favorable comment.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Thank you. And if you have suggestions as to how to make it stronger, if the Commission would like.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: Well, you might point out the contrast between Florida and everybody else. I guess Florida has three times as many hits as Illinois, which is the next closest.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: The first draft actually listed Florida specifically. We could certainly go back and do that.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Chris, on your beginning paragraph, you say oftentimes the most important person to the evidence collection process is the first responding law enforcement officer, but then we don't get into why that's important.

The first responding law enforcement officer is not the officer who collects the evidence. That is the officer who makes an observation and exercises judgment as to the preservation of the scene, the boundaries and the preservation. So there ought to be something in there that officer should be trained to think of DNA evidence in setting up the perimeters and in protecting the scene.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: You'll notice at the top of the second page, I kind of start into that a little bit and I've got examples in parentheses, but I think you're exactly right. I think it's more appropriate up at the beginning.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: To sort of set the tone why the first officer, because otherwise it's lost.

COMMISSIONER GAHN: Another reason for the first officer, too, which you can decide whether you want to add or not, but what we are experiencing in Milwaukee County, a lot of questions by the victims about DNA and even our victim witness people who tell us lots of questions by victims about it, what is it, what can it do, and right there at the sexual assault treatment center.

The more knowledge they have, the more information they give, and then give a reason why we're requiring you, victim, to do this, to go with us, not to drink this, not to change this. The more they know about DNA and what that technology can do, the more they can inform the victims, and I think that it's an issue you may want to put in.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: And I think it's an issue that this Attorney General will be very sensitive to.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: That means that the responding officers need to be thinking about this, too.

COMMISSIONER CLARKE: Actually, the responding officers are sometimes the collecting officers. Not quite as much in sexual assaults and homicides, but if this extends to burglaries, they will the evidence collectors.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: I'm really sensitive about talking about a lack of training, severely lacking. I think that's -- I think we could state it more positively, that additional training or --

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: We could say because it's emerging technology, too.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Exactly. Something that does not --

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Requires.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Thank you. It's on the first paragraph, last sentence, and on the third paragraph, second sentence.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: There is a need for increasing --

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: On new technology.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: How about the training has not kept pace with the technology application.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Something like that, yes.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: I would -- I'm on the second page in the recommendation, or maybe I'm going too far too fast, I don't like the word "standard."

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Right.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: I agree 100 percent, yes.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Baseline maybe.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Yes. I struggled with that.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Baseline is the word that comes to my mind.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: We could say benchmark.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Yes, something like that. Also, rather than competence, awareness, understanding, something, competence is fine, but the standard really --

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: It implies a formal standard, and I don't think that's what we're talking about.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Right.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: What we're talking about is an awareness.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: You wouldn't say first step, because I'm sure there are a lot of steps. I would say one step.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: I feel like I could use a little more guidance on the standard issue. I'm not clear.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Development of a baseline level of understanding or awareness, either one, among all law enforcement agencies.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I was going to say that you could -- I think standard, when you say develop a standard along that line, makes it sound like you're going to set up --

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Right, right. Yes.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: But at the same time, could you not word it in such a way to say that in keeping with levels of competence in law enforcement, that we need to do this with DNA. I guess what I'm saying is because we all have standards. We just don't want the Federal Government setting them.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Right.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: But to keep pace with those standards or -- I mean, there is a standard. You want everybody to be at a certain level of competence. You just don't want to say that we propose the Federal Government sets that standard.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: You may not need anything. That you promote the development of competence.

COMMISSIONER CROW: Or high level.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Or high level.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: High level, there you go.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Because you want to get away from mandatory.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: That takes us out of that, right. That takes us out of that.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: My god, the fights we had over that.

COMMISSIONER TURMAN: Chris, I just know, from my experience with working with the Attorney General on a lot of different things lately, I think she will like this and she'll like the brochure, but she's going to want to know specifically what we want her to do. She's very specific, she's very concrete, and just some generic thing of saying we recommend that you promote the development, she wants to know how, what kinds of options, what we recommend, and leave it up to her handlers.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: So there must be a Chief of Police national organization, right?

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: There's an international, yes.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: And there is a national sheriffs organization. And then there are, within the state organizations, in our state, the police chiefs have an organization and the sheriffs have two organizations in our state. So it seems to me we start with the national and ask them to disseminate to the state.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Like the international, they have a state association of chiefs of police. So every state that has a chiefs organization belongs to what is called -- I mean, I think Kathryn is right. If you just said that our recommendation is that you take necessary steps to ensure that dissemination to all law enforcement officers in the United States, we'd recommend the utilization of the international association of chiefs of police, the national sheriffs association, FOP, the IPA, whoever you'd like -- the IACP, the national sheriffs would help you, but at the same time, if you really want to get them out quick, get the FOP to buy into it. They've all got national organizations.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: And how many.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Actually, I think it's in the VCR.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: I'm going to recognize Dr. Rau for assistance.

DR. RAU: I would like to intervene at this point. We are developing, as you know, a set of guidelines for crime scene investigation. The draft of it is almost finished and we probably will publish it this year.

We sent each of the members of the Commission a copy of the draft and --

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: This conflict in any way, Dr. Rau?

DR. RAU: Well, it's very basic guidelines, although we're not supposed to use the word guidelines, we use the word guide now, it probably will be out this year.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: It's not a conflict with this, because this is much more specific about DNA.

DR. RAU: Right, but it includes DNA in the collection.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: The thing is this was intended to go to all police --

DR. RAU: No, I'm not talking about -- you mean the brochure. No, no. I'm talking about -- if you're talking about making recommendations, you may want to take that into consideration.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I thought that's why Chris' letter said as a first step, because we were thinking this is something we want to get into people's hands as quick as we can.

DR. RAU: No, no. This I grant you, I support.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: But do you also want to include in the letter, following up on what Dr. Rau said, that we are -- describe the other things that we are also planning to --

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: That's a good idea. Good.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: We'll talk about the training and --

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: And we have a working group that's dealing with the subject and this is just one step.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: And important enough to do a meeting. We didn't want to wait until the rest of the work was done to get this stuff in.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: And I don't know how specific you want to get, based on what Kathryn says, does she want to know, for example, that the statistics that came out of that Kansas report, that the clearance rate has remained steady over, what, the course of eight years, at 50 percent, and England is 77 percent, and some states like Kansas are as low as 41 percent.

So how important it is to get this to an investigative stage as opposed to a confirmatory stage and why you need to get that out to the people on the street.

I was just really surprised that that clearance rate has been so steady over that long period of time, despite all the efforts that are being made. But I would expect that with CODIS now, hopefully we'll see a slight --

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Kathryn, do you think that if we talk about it in terms of you should first contact the heads of these national law enforcement organizations and discuss the problem or the issue with them and make available to them the pamphlets?

COMMISSIONER TURMAN: I would suggest recommending to her that she pull together the heads of these agencies for a meeting, pick their brains about the best way to do this, and kind of go from there.

But as I said, she'll want to know specifically how many copies at some point or maybe you can say that the decision about how many copies and how it will be disseminated will be based on her meeting with these organizations.

You may want to give her the option of -- I think it would -- I would recommend that she hold a meeting with the heads of these law enforcement agencies.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: That sounds like something that she would do. In Kansas, with that great solution staying the same, as you said, once they've been arrested, with CODIS, it won't be unless he is convicted. You understand what I'm saying? Unless he's a serial rapist, we're not going to clear more. We're not going to get cold hits necessarily until they're convicted.

That's why I'm telling you -- we've got to get around this.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: I would suggest you had the post -- if there is an organization of police training, post organization, because that would get it into the grass roots pretty fast.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: We'll do a lot of thinking and we'll talk to the other agencies and see what other agencies they think should be included in all this, also.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Maybe a training association.

COMMISSIONER TURMAN: Also, Chief, has the ICP -- you know, they're doing -- we talked -- they're doing a summit this year on victims issues that we're funding. Have they done one of their summits on the DNA evidence?

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: It might be appropriate. The trail that they were following was more victim-related, as you well know, domestic violence and those kinds of things. So certainly there could be something that they would do and I'm sure that they would do a workshop if somebody from Chris' office wanted to put something together and do it at the conference in Charlotte.

COMMISSIONER TURMAN: That would be great.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: That is a good idea. An education program on that. You might even put that in for discussion purposes.

COMMISSIONER TURMAN: I'd say, in her meeting, she should discuss the dissemination of the brochure, but also try to get from them ideas on how to incorporate training on DNA evidence into their own organizations.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Dr. Forman just passed me a note asking an excellent point. If especially the law enforcement representatives of the Commission would want to participate in that meeting --

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Oh sure, be happy to.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Don't say we're in favor of --

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: While I have you here.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: It's a joke. You can say whatever you want.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I've already called and told her what I -- I said I just can't get Her Honor to go along with it.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: I think that's a very good idea.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: yes.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Any other suggestions about this? You will redraft this?

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Okay.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: And we should probably get a vote on that, too. That the recommendation would include the components that we've talked about.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: What's your time on this? Because maybe you could just send it to everybody, fax it to everybody, and they can send back any other suggestions they have on it.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Since we're this far, this won't take long.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Do you think you can fax it to everybody and we can approve the final draft? But we should have a vote, as Christopher suggests, on this in concept, but then you can -- and if you don't fax it back, we assume you have agreed. We'll take a vote on it, that we will send a letter to Attorney General Reno regarding this pamphlet. It will be a letter drafted by Chris, incorporating the suggestions we've made here.

The letter will be faxed to all of you. You may make additional suggestions. If you don't respond, we assume you approve it and unless your fax back or letter back indicates total disagreement and you want it held, we will then send it out, because I assume everything else is of a technical nature.

Is that agreeable, does everybody understand that? Okay. Jim, do you agree?

COMMISSIONER CROW: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Chief?

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Aye.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Ms. Bashinski.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Aye.

COMMISSIONER CLARKE: Aye.

COMMISSIONER GAHN: Aye.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Aye.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Aye.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: Aye.

COMMISSIONER TURMAN: Aye.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Aye. Okay.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Thank you, folks. All right. We are at that. I think our next stage -- are we done? Anything else that should come to discussion now? We have time at the end, too, of the agenda.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: Are we going to do the cover of the post-conviction?

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: This, too, would be just a recommendation, because the final word will be in NIJ. Which do you like?

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: I'm not a design specialist, but I think that our committee, the last time, we liked these two the best.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: The two that are hung up.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: This one. I don't think very many people liked this. Margaret, I know, liked this one the best because it had recommendations for handling requests highlighted. Lisa, what were you saying about this as far as not being up-to-date?

DR. FORMAN: That's like DNA from 1989. There could be data that, if the Commission agreed, that if there was a cover or an illustration that suited everyone from all -- the illustration of the cover.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: This is a similar design, is that what you're saying?

COMMISSIONER TURMAN: Right.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: I agree with you, and this looks like Chicklets anyway.

COMMISSIONER CROW: This is the one thing that's not going to change.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: There seems to be at least a growing number who prefer the dark blue and green.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: I'm concerned that it may not pass Dr. Davis' reproduction test.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Yes. When I make copies of things to pass around the office, I always like to -- or I don't like to get or send out a copy of something that has no identifier as to its source, and I always like to copy the front page and staple it to the back of whatever I send around, so that people know where it came from. Just try to make it in such a way that it will go through the average copy machine and be legible. That's all I care.

I don't care if it's black or green or anything, as long as it's legible.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: How about having this as a cover, but then the next sheet has it in white.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Right, then you can copy that.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: Sometimes they do that in publications.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: That's a good idea. So if the front page doesn't copy well, it should have the same thing on the first page that can be copied. I think that's good.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: But at least this is something that somebody will see on their desk and pick up and then for copying purposes --

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: That's a great idea. You don't think they'd pick this up, too?

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: I think so.

COMMISSIONER TURMAN: Well, you could put the white background, but the banded pattern is what Lisa and I are reacting to.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Who is this going to go to?

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Lawyers.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Lawyers, judges, victim advocates.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I would think they'd be more attracted to this. These guys have got the critical eye. They know what it is. Everybody else is going to look at it and say, hmm, this is interesting, let me look at that, because I didn't know this was from '89.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Let me comment about publications. People who -- at the printing level, the final level, the front cover, the design of the front cover, if it has an illustration, that person who is creating that front cover arranges the illustration to fit the cover format, which oftentimes includes reversing. So make sure that if you have any illustrations on the front cover, that no one switches them around to fit the format. I've seen that happen repeatedly.

COMMISSIONER CROW: Of course, there are two ways to show the DNA molecule, one of which is right and one of which is wrong. But one of my Japanese friends went through Watson's textbook and approximately half of the DNA molecules were printed backwards.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: Which may be your explanation. So I gather then, do most of you favor this dark blue? Chief, you like the DNA bands.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Yes, ma'am.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: I believe that the dark blue will be less expensive than the other one because of the number of colors involved, but what I can say is that I will carry your concerns and considerations as I travel through the trials and tribulations of the Department of Justice printing process.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: Well, no matter what, Chris, those are the two, depending on what the other considerations are.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: We will endeavor to get one of the two.

CHAIRPERSON ABRAHAMSON: We are now done with that.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Thank you.

Previous	Contents	Next
Back to National Commission Main Page