NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

 

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

 

SPONSOR:

Lopez

 

DATE TYPED:

03/07/03

 

HB

 

 

SHORT TITLE:

Sex Offender DNA Samples

 

SB

861

 

 

ANALYST:

Fox-Young

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

 

 

$0.1 Significant

(See Narrative)

Recurring

General Fund/DNA Identification System Fund

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

 

REVENUE

 

Estimated Revenue

Subsequent

Years Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

 

$0.1 Significant

$0.1 Significant

Recurring

DNA Identification System Fund

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

Responses Received From

Attorney General (AG)

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

 

No Response

Department of Public Safety (DPS)

Public Defender Department (PDD)

Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of Bill

 

House Bill 861 amends 29-11A-4 NMSA 1978, providing that when a sex offender registers with a county sheriff, the sheriff shall obtain a DNA sample for insertion into the DNA identification system pursuant to the provisions of the DNA Identification Act.  The sheriff shall also collect a DNA collection fee of $100 from each offender.  Fees shall be deposited into the DNA identification system fund.

 

The bill amends 29-11A-5, providing that the sheriff shall forward the samples of DNA obtained from sex offenders to the DNA identification system’s administrative center and the collected fees to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for deposit into the fund.

 

The bill amends 29-11A-5.1, providing that DNA analysis information shall only be disclosed pursuant to the provisions of Section 29-16-8 NMSA 1978.

 

The bill amends 29-16-6, providing that covered offenders registering or renewing registration pursuant to 29-11A-4 NMSA on or after July 1, 2003 shall provide a sample at the time of registration or renewal.

 

     Significant Issues

 

The Attorney General (AG) notes that any amendments to the Act implicate constitutional challenges currently pending in the New Mexico Supreme Court and the New Mexico Court of Appeals.  AG reports that relevant cases include Doe v. Department of Public Safety, NMSC No. 27,854; State v. Brothers, NMSC 27,739; State v. Furr, NMSC No. 27,561; and State v. Druktenis, NMCOA No. 22, 437.  In addition, two cases pending in the United States Supreme Court will affect sex offender registration acts.  These cases are Doe v. Dept. of Public Safety, 271 F.3d 38 (2nd Cir. 2001) (due process challenge to Connecticut’s Act) and Doe v. Otte, 259 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (ex post facto challenge). 

 

The state maintains a significant number of unprocessed DNA samples, as it does not currently have sufficient resources available to process all of the samples from state and local law enforcement agencies and from covered offenders.  In the absence of an appropriation, the DPS crime lab will be unable to generate DNA profiles for inclusion in the federal or state DNA databases without reducing the amount of resources devoted to other analysis.  The majority of analysis currently being performed is for cases that have suspects and impending trial dates. 

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The Attorney General (AG) notes that challenges to the requirement of providing a DNA sample or the payment of a fee may be raised in either a writ proceeding or on direct appeal.  Such challenges will likely increase the caseload in the Criminal Appeals Division.  District Attorneys, PDD, and the courts may see an increase in caseload as a result of the provisions of the bill. 

 

There may be a small increase in workload for county sheriffs, as they will be required to obtain and forward samples and fees to DPS.

 

CONFLICT, RELATIONSHIP

 

Relates to/Conflicts with HB 449 (Additional registration requirements, lengthens registration periods); Conflicts with SB 569 (Provides for sex offender registration within 24 hours)

 

TECHNICAL ISSUES

 

Page 1, lines 13-14 states “making an appropriation.”  There is no appropriation contained in the bill.

 

JCF/njw