Local Politics

Perdue wants authorities to collect DNA upon arrest

Posted May 11, 2010

— Gov. Beverly Perdue on Tuesday called on state lawmakers to pass legislation that would allow law enforcement officers to collect DNA samples from anyone arrested on felony charges.

Twenty-three states and the federal government already have laws authorizing DNA samples upon arrest. The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation predicted that such a law would solve 100 cases in the state within a year.

“Safe communities are a critical part of ensuring North Carolina emerges from this recession poised to be the best place in the world to live and work,” Perdue said in a statement. “We can’t create jobs or grow businesses unless folks feel safe.”

“Many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, and catching them early after arrest can prevent crime," Attorney General Roy Cooper said in a statement. "This proposal will save lives, prevent violent crime by repeat offenders, solve cold cases and exonerate those wrongly accused of a crime.”

Perdue also called for $10 million for the Criminal Justice Law Enforcement Automated Data Services project to put all criminal records into one comprehensive system. The technology will help law enforcement communicate more efficiently and help catch criminals faster, she said.

Other elements of the Governor’s legislative crime package, which was announced at Guilford Technical Community College, include $5 million to expand the use of VIPER radios for communication between first responders, salary increases to recruit and retain probation officers and restoring funding for the North Carolina Victims Assistance Network.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • chfdcpt May 12, 2010

    It really bothers me to see all the posters and their "if you did not do anything wrong..."

    First of all, the burden of proof is on the state, not on the accused.

    Did we not just have a man serve over 15 years for a crime he did not commit?

    And do you really think that the government will not abouse the DNA database if allowed?

    How about we keep violent criminals locke up instead of letting them go back on parole time after time? But no, instead of the state maintaining their responsibility to the safety of the citizens, keep the criminials out.

    Of course, nothing will change as long as you sheep keep sending the same corrupt career politicians back.

  • boatrokr May 12, 2010

    Consider that a number of non-violent offenses are considered felonies! Arrested does not mean guilty, folks. I support DNA collection only in the case of murder and rape.

    I'm sure some happy mouth will post here that "well, then don't commit a crime." You don't have to commit a crime to be forced to give your DNA under this law....just ARRESTED.

  • whatusay May 12, 2010

    We are talking about a "felonly" charge here, not running a stop sign or a tail light out. To be charges with a felonly one should expect a DNA sample to be taken, even before a conviction. The DNA could also prove a person innocent.

  • Mugu May 12, 2010

    Shouldn't we wait for a conviction first? I think that all felons who go to prison should submit a DNA sample, nothing more, nothing less.

    Perdue wants a police state that I will not abide by. These DNA samples will be abused and eventually be used for debt collection purposes, to help imprison people who cannot pay their child support, alimony and credit cards, a clear violation of our constitutional rights. I thought Debtors prisons have been outlawed.

  • asdfg May 12, 2010

    this would make it so easy to set someone up. We leave our DNA behind everywhere we go, hair falls out, saliva on utensils and glasses and napkins when we eat at restaurants, clipped nails, cigarette butts; its a little harder to gather someone's fingerprints and move them to the scene of a crime.

    For those with nothing to hide, I hope none of your family members are criminals. There was a case recently in another state where they narrowed down what family a suspect was from by similarities with dna they had on file from another crime.

  • smalldogsrule May 12, 2010

    Inter Alios

    Please describe how "easy" it is for false charges to be filed. You seem to know sooooooo much about what really happens inside law enforcement agencies. Certainly you must be the attorney general of the world.

  • sillywabbitthepatriot May 12, 2010

    I support this bill.

    You have to have DNA linked to evidence FIRST to get a conviction. Not the other way around.

  • hardwork919 May 12, 2010

    So a fingerprint is ok but DNA is somehow "TOO MUCH"?! LOL You people slay with me with your constant "my-rights-are-being-taken-away" how is this any different of the police accusing you of something and then having your DNA tested to prove your innocence? What's the harm in this? If you didn't do anything, there's nothing to worry about...

  • meganfauls May 11, 2010

    No, no, and NO. Until one is convicted, we retain a long standing right to innocence. Our judicial system is founded on this principle. Giving the state access to information as personal as DNA is a lousy idea on stilts! The SBI is now under investigation for mishandling evidence, and now they want access to DNA prior to conviction? How in the world could anyone think this is a good idea?

  • signothefish May 11, 2010

    Obama supports DNA sampling upon arrest, nuff said.

    This article also addresses affirmativediversity's claim that a fingerprint and DNA sample could be used for the same purpose (answered by the ACLU no doubt), which obviously they are very different animals.