MR. ASPLEN: Okay. Folks. While the last couple of folks are getting their lunch, let me shut the doors first.

I would like to introduce our luncheon speaker for today, Maureen Casey. Maureen is currently the Deputy Commissioner of Policy and Planning for the New York City Police Department.She's here representing Commissioner Safir.

She joined the Police Department on April 7th of '97. She was appointed Counsel to the First Deputy Commissioner. As Counsel to the First Deputy Commissioner, she provided legal and policy advice on a number of issues, including projects such as technological development, particularly DNA.

Currently as Deputy Commissioner of Policy and Planning, she's responsible for ensuring maximal organizational efficiency and effectiveness by conducting in-depth research, by planning and policy analysis.

For those of you who are somewhat familiar with the national landscape, if you will, in terms of what different states are doing in, related to the DNA technology, while you probably understand that Florida and Virginia are kind of in the lead in the race, if you will, New York is coming up behind fast and furious.

Their commitment to -- while they were say more thoughtful to their approach and took more time thinking about it initially, what they are doing right now to expedite, number one, their infrastructure, number two, the samples that they're collecting and the scope of utilization of DNA technology and, number three, what they're doing to address their backlog problems is absolutely remarkable and I think serves as a great model both the city and the state for the effectiveness of good organization at the top and good commitment and full commitment by the top brass, if you will, to this technology.

You can do remarkable things in a very short time, I think which is exactly what New York has done. So with that, let me turn it over Maureen Casey.

(Applause.)

MS. CASEY: Thank you, Chris, and I'm very glad to be here today. One thing I think we know is that we learn, often learn best by repetition, and I think what you're going to hear from me today will be a repetition of some of the things that you have already heard this morning and some of the things that I know you will hear from our guest speaker from England tomorrow, so I'm going to move on.

As Chris said, I am currently the Deputy Commissioner of Policy and Planning at New York City Police Department, and one of my responsibilities there, at the direction of Commissioner Safir, is to coordinate the department's DNA's initiatives.

On behalf of Police Commissioner Safir, I want to thank NIJ, DOJ and the National Commission for providing this opportunity to discuss DNA technology and its importance for law enforcement. Commissioner Safir believes, as do I, that all of you can play an important role in promoting the effective use of this technology and significantly improving the quality of policing throughout the United States.

I hope that at the conclusion of my presentation you'll be encouraged to return to your respective jurisdictions and urge your federal and state legislators to increase funding for DNA testing and to develop laws that will most effectively allow us to solve more crimes.

It is also the Commissioner's hope that you will use DNA more in your own respective departments, and with all due respect to my colleague from Florida, Dave Coffman, I think if Commissioner Safir were here, he would be very happy if the only thing you left this room with was that you were calling for DNA testing of all arrestees. There's a little bit more to what we're looking to do, but that is his ultimate goal.

I will begin by speaking about the present state of DNA use in policing and then make recommendations concerning where we believe law enforcement should be headed in using DNA.

In the United States, we have many people doing great work using DNA technology. Most major police or sheriffs' departments have had some cases within their jurisdictions where a laboratory was called upon to a compare a crime scene sample to a profile of a suspected offender.

This is the most basic use of DNA technology. The police have a crime scene sample, and a suspect either volunteers or by court order provides a sample for comparison.

We recently saw such an example in Virginia where the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stopped the execution of a convicted offender to allow for this type of comparison to be made. Similarly, Governor Bush in Texas recently stayed an execution to allow for such testing.

While such an approach is useful in solving individual crimes, it does not begin to touch upon the potential scope and magnitude in which DNA testing may be employed.

The second way in which DNA technology is being used is through DNA databanking. In this process, samples are taken from offenders and their profiles are placed in a databank where they can be compared to other DNA profiles recovered at crime scenes.

Every state in the nation has a law that allows for DNA databanking. The most progressive law in databanking is Louisiana's.

Their statue allows the police to take DNA samples from most people they arrest for felonies and for some misdemeanors.

Unfortunately, however, as is common, the many of us see, funding was not allocated to create the infrastructure or hire the employees required to implement the law.

As such, they have not been able to move forward with their major DNA testing initiative in any significant way.

Louisiana's law is the only one of its kind in the nation. What is more the norm are laws thatallow DNA samples to be taken from convicted offenders. While these laws differ from state to state, they generally apply only to convicted felons.

In New York, for example, we take DNA samples from about 65 percent of the convicted felons. Looking at other states, Massachusetts has about 40 crimes for which samples may be taken. Virginia's law covers all convicted felons, including juveniles.

The samples taken under these laws are usually obtained through blood testing. When analyzed, the samples reveal a DNA profile that is uploaded into a databank. When the profiles obtained from crime scene and the suspect or offender profile match, an identification has been made.

While the system seems simple, we as a country are still quite limited when it comes to successfully implementing large-scale use of DNA testing.

Relatively speaking, most states have few profiles in their databases and even fewer crime scene samples analyzed.

As you have heard already this morning, two states which have led the way in the use of DNA technology are Florida and Virginia.

Florida prosecuted the first DNA case in this country in 1968 and established its convicted offender databank in 1990. Virginia passed the first DNA databank law in the country in 1989.

No withstanding their accomplishments and successes in this area, these states have only approximately 500 matches between them.

The difficulty confronting these states is reflective of the problem throughout the nation. There are insufficient funding and inadequate laws to allow for a comprehensive DNA testing and databanking system that we believe this country requires.

The place to look for a model for DNA testing is England. In less than six years, the English have put together the world's most comprehensive system for identifying criminals by using a national system to collect, collect DNA samples from arrestees and at crime scenes.

At presently, they are typically identifying 300 to 500 criminal suspects per week using this system and have made as many as 900 matches in a single week.

I should also point out that the English have proven that government can act quickly when it is determined to do so.

It took just six months from the time that a final determination was made to proceed with the national databanking system until that system was ready to collect and analyze samples.

There are certainly key elements in the English system that are worth emphasizing.

First, unlike the United States, the English police take DNA samples from people at the time of arrest. They do not have to wait months or years until the person is convicted in order to get a sample to compare to other crime scene profiles.

This can save a tremendous amount of money since other investigations can be quickly completed through the exclusion of suspects or the identification of perpetrators.

Second, the English takes samples from felony and misdemeanor arrestees. They will allow samples to be taken from any offender arrested for what they call a recordable offense. These are roughly the equivalents of our fingerprintable offenses.

The English have the wisdom to realize that those who commit minor crimes also often commit more serious ones. In fact, arresting offenders for driving while intoxicated has led to DNA matches being made for murder. This kind of success is hardly surprising.

We in this country regularly identify murderers using fingerprints taken from suspects during previous arrests made for minor offenses.

What is disappointing is that we do no have the ability or legislative authority to do the same thing using DNA profiles.

The English databank was launched in April of 1995 and today has over 800,000 profiles of suspects and convicted offenders.

Using the database, approximately 72,000 suspects have been linked to crimes, and in another 10,000 cases one crime scene has been linked to another even though a suspect has been yet to identified.

What is perhaps most interesting about this system is that it is being used to solve both violent crimes and property crimes.

As law enforcement professionals, we know that we are quite successful at solving major crimes such as murder; however, property crimes, such as burglary and auto theft, have very low clearance rates of about 14 percent nationally.

DNA evidence provides us the opportunity to significantly improve our success rate in solving these crimes, too.

In England where there are over 72,000 DNA suspect matches, over 42, over 40,000 of these are for burglary and 15,000 are for auto theft.

It is worth noting that these matches are being made even though English police have not been concentrating on property crime. They expect these numbers to go much higher as they take more and more crime scene samples at the location of property crimes.

In addition to having the greatest success in solving crimes through DNA, we believe England is using the most acceptable method of taking samples from suspects.

Instead of taking blood, the English use a soft cotton swab, called buccal swabs, to obtain samples from the inside of the suspect's cheek.

It is important that we as we move forward in using DNA technology, we should begin to use buccal swabs since they are less intrusive than taking blood.

While England has implemented this very successful system over the past six years, we as a nation have struggled to implement the federal system called CODIS or the Combined DNA Index System.

CODIS seems to link many of the laboratories being used throughout the United States. At present, as you all have already heard this morning, approximately 43 states and the District of Columbia participate in CODIS.

Unfortunately, however, although there are approximately one half million profiles in the CODIS system, CODIS has made less than 500 suspect matches and about the same number of scene-to-scene matches.

The reasons for this are several. First, the system, aside from the crime scene profile compliment is made up exclusively of convicted offenders. There are no profiles from those just arrested.

Since many of these convicted offenders are presently in prison for serious offenses, they are not committing the offense that we seek to solve with new crime scene evidence.

Second, over 200,000 of the profiles in CODIS were analyzed using an older technology. Since this technology is being replaced, the early samples must be reanalyzed before comparisons can be made.

The third problem we face is there is an estimated 500,000 additional samples that have been taken from convicted offenders that have never been analyzed and are not in the CODIS system.

What is perhaps even more upsetting, as Chris Asplen already mentioned, is that in as many as one million other cases, convicted offenders who should have had samples taken from them never did. It's not clear that we will ever recover all of those samples.

A separate issue plaguing this country concerns the biological evidence and storage from 180,000 rape cases. This evidence has never been analyzed to determine if it contains offender DNA.

We probably have hundreds of murderers and thousands of sex offenders walking our streets today who could be put in prison if this analysis was done.

Having said all of this, we do not wish to suggest that everything going on in the United States is negative. As I stated previously, there are many people doing great things and working to expand our DNA capabilities.

For a moment consider, New York State since I am most familiar with it. When Commissioner Safir spoke in February of 1999 to the National Commission of the Future of DNA Evidence, the law in New York allowed us to take DNA samples from only eight percent of convicted fellows, and these, as you can guess, were only the most serious offenders who were convicted of crimes such as murder and sexual assault.

At the same time, the New York State Police, which maintains the state convicted offender database, was not yet analyzing the samples even from this limited pool of offenders.

The New York City Medical Examiner who maintains the New York City databank was not linked to the state system and, of course, the state was not part of the national CODIS system.

At the NYPD, we had 16,000 rape kits in storage that had never been analyzed and there was no clear plan on how to proceed.

Well, in the last year, a great deal has changed. First, at the Police Commission's urging, the governor of New York and the state legislature have move forward and expanded the law to require 65 percent of convicted felons to be included in your database.

Among the crimes included are weapons offenses, robbery and the higher level narcotics violations. We're also very pleased that burglary was included since as we know from the excellent DNA work being done in Virginia and Florida, this addition will help us identify many sex offenders.

I'm also glad to report that more recently New York's governor called for an additional expansion of a databank to include all convicted offenders and for the establishment of a DNA databank to help identify missing persons.

In August of 1999, the State Police laboratory went on line with CODIS, and in April of this year, the New York City Medical Examiner went on line with the state laboratory and is uploading profiles to them. This brought almost immediate success with the first match occurring within days of going on line. One suspect was linked to three rapes that occurred within our city transit system.

New York State's convicted database has over 8,000 profiles and more are added every day. In addition, they have put into place a comprehensive program to ensure that samples are taken from appropriate offenders, including those on parole and probation.

We estimate that there will be over 30,000 samples collected annually. Among those involved in the collection process are correctional staff, physicians' assistants and a private contractor.

Also, as of January 1, 1991, Commissioner Safir changed NYPD policy regarding the analysis of rape kits. The old policy limited analysis to known suspect cases. Now every sexual assault kit in New York is being processed by the medical examiner.

We have also increased the number of submissions from other violent crimes and have a pilot program in two of our Bronx precincts to process burglaries for DNA evidence.

At the same time, we recognize the importance of dealing with our backlog of rape kits and are proceeding to hire outside contractors to process these kits. Within the month, the city will be awarding three contracts to private forensic laboratories for this analysis.

In sum, the process will work as follows: The kits will be shipped from NYPD to the labs. The labs will then inventory the kits and screen for the presence of semen. DNA analysis will be performed on positive kits. Profile information will be forwarded to the city's DNA lab, and the remaining kits will be returned to the department.

We're very excited about this initiative as we know this process will solve many crimes.

One of those laboratories that we will be contracting with is represented here, and the Cellmark, Mark Stolorow is here. The other two labs are Bodie Technologies and Gene Screen in Texas.

Just as an aside, a year ago when the Police Commissioner said, Maureen, you have to find a way to deal with this backlog, it's the only way we're going to get any credibility, I'm moving forward with the arrestee issue, I explained to him that the medical examiner's office did not have the capacity to analyze the backlog. They could barely keep up with the existing caseload, and he said, What about contracting out? And I said, Nobody does it in this type of volume. He says, I like it when nobody else has done it. Find a way to get it done, and I called Paul Ferrara in Virginia and I called Dave Coffman in Florida and I started talking to a lot of my colleagues and they're saying, It's never been done. It's never been done. It's evidence in a case. You can't do it. Well, we're doing it, and we're going to be awarding those contracts within the month and we're very excited because we know we are going to solve many crimes.

Because of all of our efforts, the work load of, and the demands on, our medical examiner have significantly increased. In response to this in January of this year at a "State of the City" address, Major Guiliani announced the intent to create a major state-of-the-art DNA laboratory in New York City.

Now, obviously, the lab we have in New York is doing excellent work. In fact, I believe it is doing more casework than any other government lab in the country.

Still we believe with the continuing development of high sensitivity testing our caseload of crime scene evidence may increase from about 3,000 cases annually to almost a hundred thousand in the next five years and that's in New York City alone. So it's very important that we expand our capabilities as quickly as possible.

As I previously discussed, Commissioner Safir would like to see our laws expanded to allow us to take DNA samples from offenders at the time of arrest, specifically for fingerprintable offenses.

We believe these samples should be taken using buccal swabs. Naturally if the person is acquitted or not prosecuted, the profiles should be removed from the data bank and the sample destroyed.

Just to give you a sense of the impact of such a policy, the British Forensic Science Service had 36,000 matches when the Commissioner spoke to the National Commission about a year ago. Recently they had over 72,000 matches.

We have to keep in mind, too, that England is about a fifth of the size of the United States. Were they our size and at that same rate, they would have 350,000 matches since 1995.

That is the kind of success we are capable of having and we must move toward to obtain funding, training and facilities to achieve this.

Many question whether we really believe that it is necessary to take DNA at the time of arrest. Isn't it enough to wait until people are convicted?

We believe it is quite clear that samples need to be taken at the time of arrest and I want to explain some of those reasons why.

First, we have to realize that comparing a DNA profile is in many ways similar to comparing fingerprints. This is something that is done at the time of arrest and not at the time of conviction.

We take fingerprints at the time of arrest to check for warrants, and then we compare them to fingerprints taken at burglaries and other crimes. We certainly do not wait until that person is convicted or acquitted six months or a year later to see if he is wanted for other crimes.

Second, people are often not convicted of the specific crime they are actually charged with or commit. There are a number of reasons for this, including the need to plea bargain cases to keep the criminal justice system moving efficiently; however, this leads to situations where the police have apprehended someone for an offense that is clearly included in the DNA databank statute of the individual state, but because the person accepts a plea bargain for a lesser offense, their DNA will not be placed in the databank. By taking the DNA at the time of arrest, we would avoid this problem.

There are also some people who suggest that we should only have profiles from convicted felons in our data bank because only those who commit the most serious crimes should warrant this degree of government intrusion; however, since the Police Commissioner favors the use the buccal swabs to take DNA samples, the degree of intrusion is, in fact, minimal.

Equally people should be aware that the DNA profiles being placed in law enforcementdatabanks do not reveal genetic predisposition. So we reject arguments that such databanks will lead to some type of Orwellian state or genetic discrimination.

The profiles look like bar codes and they can be compared to profiles. That's the purpose they serve.

In fact, if the public, including you and I, need fear anything regarding the use of DNA information, it is the relationship between the medical establishment and insurance companies who regularly exchange confidential information and are not subject to the current prohibitions on sharing DNA information that currently exists for law enforcement.

In addition, our experience in law enforcement supports the concept of taking DNA at the time of arrest even for low-level offenders. We know, and a 55 percent reduction in major crimes since 1993 in New York City spurred by addressing small offenses supports our understanding, that offenders who commit minor crimes very often commit more serious ones.

In April, an NYPD transit officer seized a loaded semiautomatic firearm when he stopped a man for jumping a turnstile in the subway system.

We should not have to wait until we catch a person with a gun like that before we can take a DNA sample from him. We should the take sample when he is arrested for committing his first fingerprintable offense which, by the way, includes not paying a subway fare. So that when we recover a gun like this at a homicide, we can swab it and know who was carrying it.

A final point concerning DNA at the time of arrest. Consider how many investigative hours could be saved by reducing investigation time on the crime of arrest as well as other unsolved crimes.

All over this country people are sitting in jail awaiting trial, some undoubtedly having committed rapes and other crimes for which DNA profiles are sitting somewhere in the CODIS system at the local, state or national level. But instead of law enforcement being able to quickly make these comparisons, we have to wait for the person to go to trial on the current offense, hopefully be found guilty of an offense that happens to be covered by the state's statute. Then hope that the state is actually taking the required samples and analyzing them.

Meanwhile, investigators are working day and night on other cases that the same person may have been involved with and often following up false leads that go nowhere.

By taking samples at the time of arrest, we could free up this investigative time and allow for other investigations to proceed.

More importantly, we could give peace of mind to victims who would know their attackers have been caught. It is also quite probable that by implementing universal DNA testing of those arrested and the concomitant crime work that would have to accompany it, we would identify many innocent people who have been falsely identified or convicted.

Now, some may raise the obvious concern, and it's already been raised here today, Won't it be expensive. The simple is answer initially it will be, but we believe the expense will be well worth it.

In the United States, close to 15 million arrests are made each year. Let us assume for argument sake that we plan to take DNA in 12 million of those cases.

At $30 a sample, and I think that with economies of scale, the cost may even be less expensive, it would cost about $360 million for the first year. It could be expected for the cost to decrease each subsequent year as we've devised methods, probably using fingerprints checks, to avoid taking samples from people whose DNA profile is already permanently in the database.

At the same time, I think we should dedicate an equal or greater amount of funding to allow for the analysis of casework. So let us assume we are working toward a goal of about a billion dollar expenditure.

That sounds like an incredible amount of money, but consider this. Nationally, the direct and intergovernmental criminal justice expenditure cost is over $120 billion a year. The New York City Police Department, for example, has a budget of over $3 billion a year. An increase of $1 billion would be less than a one percent increase in the national criminal justice expenditure.

Another way to think about it, for those who feel the cost is prohibitive, is in terms of the cost other major government projects. Consider the United States military's B-1 Bomber. Each one cost about $1 billion.

My point is not to take anything away from the military, but we believe a comprehensive program that will place murderers, rapists and other criminals behind bars, warrants at least equal funding. And we think that the Federal Government has a large role to play in providing that funding. We are not claiming that $1 billion is the ideal number, but certainly it is that magnitude of scale to which we should be looking?

In fairness, we are heading in that direction. Although I would like to see us move even more quickly, there are a number of Bills in Congress that will provide as much as $60 million in the next two years to address the backlog of convicted offender and casework samples. This funding, if approved, will certainly help us make an impact on our backlogs.

As we gain more federal funding, there are certain elements we need to look for in terms of how it may be spent: First, and most obviously, the funding must be available to address the convicted backlog and to address unanalyzed evidence from unsolved cases.

Second, we must be able to use it for training and facilities development.

Third, the funding must be available for use in public, private partnerships.

Fourth, we need to be able to use it to ensure compliance with standards established by the FBIand its DNA advisory board.

Lastly, there must be flexibility in how the funding is to be used. The funding must be allocated so that different jurisdictions can use it consistent with their own needs. Given the issues that have just been cited, I think the question we need to address is, Where should we go from here?

First, we have to speak in one clear voice that calls for the DNA testing of all persons arrested for fingerprintable offenses. We take fingerprints at the time of arrest and there's no reason that DNA samples cannot be taken at the same time. It is more than just coincidence that Dr. Alex Jeffreys, the first person to use DNA in a British criminal case referred to the DNA profile as a DNA fingerprint. In fact, in England at the moment, DNA is actually being listed literally from fingerprints.

Second, we have to address our backlogs. We have to analyze crime scene evidence that is sitting in storage. The cost of analyzing can be expensive ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.

We will have to chose judiciously as we proceed, but this evidence must be analyzed. This is going to require significant funding, but when murderer after murderer and rapist after rapist are arrested, the investment will be worth more than the expenditure.

Just as an aside, I should mention that the mayor of the city of New York has put up the $12 million that will be required to analyze the 16,000 rape kits that we have in storage, appreciating the fact that we believe rapist after rapist will be caught.

Third, we also have to ensure that our existing laws regarding the taking of DNA samples from convicted offenders are enforced. It makes little sense to have these laws available to us if we are not using them.

Clearly, we have to push to achieve laws that allow us to take samples from all arrestees, but we cannot open ourselves to criticism by not using the existing laws to their fullest.

Fourth, at the same time, we have to take a very close look at our crime scene work. DNA evidence is very sensitive and can be easily contaminated. Sneezing, coughing or even leaving a fingerprint or a hair at a crime scene can introduce new DNA into an area.

DNA testing is becoming increasingly sensitive and advanced. In fact, in the near future, as you've heard about today, microchip technology will make it possible to conduct DNA analysis right at the crime scene.

A mobile unit the size of a briefcase will have all of the equipment and chemicals required to analyze evidence and produce a DNA profile in as little as 30 minutes.

We are all aware that defense attorneys will look for every opportunity to suggest that the police made a mistake.

Let's not give them that opportunity by having procedures or practices that allow for second-rate, crime scene investigations. Let us begin to establish a common set of guidelines on how to train officers to preserve crime scenes and collect evidence properly.

Our goal must be to provide a bottom-up, top-down comprehensive training program that teaches every officer and supervisor about the sensitivity of DNA evidence and how to preserve crime scenes and prevent evidence contamination.

Certainly, we appreciate the efforts of the Commission and the National Institute of Justice in publishing the pamphlet, What Every Law Enforcement Officer Should Know About DNA Evidence. I hope that you have been able to get copies of these for your departments.

We have to teach our crime scene officers the best methods for DNA-evidence collection and how to judiciously choose when and where to gather that evidence.

In New York, Commissioner Safir is sending some of his crime scene unit officers to England to study the best methods used there.

Fifth, to achieve these goals, we have to go to our legislators and make it quite clear that we require extensive funding and that the fund willing more than pay for itself through crime reduction. To show them how successful the implementation of comprehensive DNA programs are, we must use the media time and time again to showcase our successes. When DNA testing solves a crime, particularly a heinous one, let the world know about it.

Let me tell you about one of our cases. In New York City from 1993 to 1999, 51 rapes and sexual assaults were committed by seemingly the same man.

During the first rape, the rapist, Isaac Jones, left behind evidence. Unfortunately, we had no DNA databank. Jones was out on parole at the time he committed the first sexual assault.

When we finally arrested Jones in 1999, we linked him to 17 sexual assaults using DNA evidence, and we believe him to be responsible for 51 attacks in all.

Had New York State had the DNA law that Commissioner Safir advocates when Jones committed the first attack in 1993, 50 innocent victims would not have had to suffer the horrors of a sexual assault.

It's time we change our laws. Equally when we are unable to quickly solve a terrible crime because the suspect is not in our DNA databank, even though he has been arrested many times for so-called minor offenses, we should let the public know that, too.

We need strong public support to be successful it in implementing a comprehensive DNA program. To get this support, we have to make it clear that DNA testing will benefit them in other ways as well.

The public must know that if a member of their family is an innocent suspect in a criminal investigation, DNA testing will help the person's prove the person's innocence.

It has done this already for at least 73 convicted people, many of whom were found guilty of murder or rape, and at least eight of whom were on death row.

The public must also understand that DNA testing is a tool that we are going to use not only to catch murderers and rapists, but also burgers and car thieves.

As such, DNA testing has the potential to be financially beneficial to the public by reducing crime through the greater use of DNA testing. House insurance and car insurance will be more affordable.

We must also educate the public and dispel the myths advanced by some civil libertarians. We must make it clear that we will not provide the DNA information collected to medical researchers or insurance companies. It will not be used for anything except law enforcement investigations.

When we make all of the benefits of DNA testing clear to the public and dispel the myths, we can then ask them to put pressure on our law makers to give us the DNA testing at the time of arrest.

We know that this is an ambitious agenda. It will challenge the capacity of existing resources, but it is also an incredibly exciting time.

From his bully pulpit as Police Commission of New York City, Commissioner Safir has and will to continue to fight to get more resources and greater so we may have even greater success in solving crime. I ask you to join us in these efforts.

I want to leave you with this picture. A man in a HAZMAT suit or even a space suit. That is what the criminal of the future should look like because in anything less, we will catch him using DNA testing evidence.

Again, on behalf of Commissioner Safir, I thank you for your time and attention. Keep up the great work you all are doing and go back and fight to get this country the DNA programs and funding we all need. Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

MS. MUNDY: Joy Mundy from the New York Police Department. In all of your logistics of studying the costs, have there been --

THE AUDIENCE: We can't hear you back here. Can you use the microphone?

MS. MUNDY: I'll put this way: I'm a brunt sergeant trying to solve auto theft, okay, and thebiggest problem we have is putting suspects in jail because we don't have enough prison systems.

So what I want to know is has there been any studies done by the NYPD to see what the impact will be on the prison systems, if that's going to be something coming back to haunt us on the other end.

MS. CASEY: I think the one thing I can say, and Chris mentioned this when we started, New York City and New York State are working together to develop and look at the full system impact.

The State Police are the keepers of the state convicted offender databank. Katie Lapp, Governor Patoki's director of criminal justice, oversees the entire criminal justice system from local police departments through the tail end of the system of parole. So Commissioner Safir is working with her to look at those types of issues.

To tell you that we have done a very specific study at this point, no, but we definitely appreciate the fact that this will have long-term consequences for the entire system. So it's one direction that we are going in. Any other questions?

(No response.)

MS. CASEY: Thank you very much.

MR. ASPLEN: Thank you, Maureen. We are a little bit ahead of schedule, so why don't we take a break until quarter of, relax a little bit. We'll clear out a few more of the plates and things like that and we're back at quarter of and we can start up on time.

(Recess taken -- 1:25 p.m.)

(After recess -- 1:50 p.m.)

Previous	Contents	Next
Back to National Commission Main Page