One change adopted by the House would require that a suspect's DNA sample be destroyed and the information about it expunged from the database within 60 days if the charge or charges do not result in a conviction. The bill previously allowed for automatic expunction only if charges were dropped before arraignment - otherwise, a cleared suspect would have to apply to get the sample removed.
Another change would provide for post-conviction review of DNA evidence that might not have been available at trial - opening the door for new trials in cases in which the DNA undercuts an earlier conviction.
A third change provides for a suspect to request a prompt comparison of his or her DNA sample with DNA swabs taken at a crime scene to see if they match.
Several delegates questioned the changes, voicing fears that they could help criminals evade capture. Del. Richard K. Impallaria, a Baltimore County Republican, asked why a suspect's DNA would be expunged when a case falls apart even if his or her fingerprints are not removed from police records.
"I'm more willing to side on the side of victims of crime," Impallaria said.
But Del. Joseph F. Vallario Jr., a Prince George's Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary panel, defended the changes, saying they "make it favorable for the victim and also make it fair."
Del. Anthony J. O'Donnell, the minority leader from Southern Maryland and a co-sponsor of the bill, questioned whether the state can afford to expand the database while it is struggling fiscally. But Vallario said he doubted the changes made in the bill altered the original cost estimate of about $1 million.
Some civil libertarians remain opposed to the bill, arguing that it would allow for a search without a warrant before a defendant is convicted. Cindy Boersma, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, said the governor's bill would give "blanket permission" to take DNA without having to defend that action before a judge.
"The warrant is the guarantee that there's a legitimate reason to intrude into our personal privacy and take highly personal information from us without our consent," Boersma said.
Virginia courts have upheld a similar law in that state.
The Senate had been scheduled to begin debate on the bill yesterday but postponed consideration until Monday so that lawmakers could review changes made in the House.
Sen. Nathaniel J. McFadden, a Baltimore Democrat and the state's first black Senate president pro tem, said those changes might satisfy some members of the black caucus in his chamber, though not all of them. Nonetheless, he predicted the Senate would pass the bill.
"I told the governor I would work with him," McFadden said.
But Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a Baltimore Democrat and a public defender, said she remained opposed to the bill. She has said that mostly young, African-American men would be targeted for DNA collection.
"I can't imagine the amendment that would make it OK," she said.
tim.wheeler@baltsun.com laura.smitherman@baltsun.com
