Testimony
of Dwight E. Adams, Assistant Director, Laboratory Division,
FBI
Before
the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and
Drugs
May 14, 2002
"The FBI's CODIS Program"
Quality Assurance
Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories
Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Grassley and Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for inviting the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
to provide an update on our efforts relating to DNA, specifically
with respect to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and
the National DNA database.
In looking
back at the first use of DNA technology on casework in England
in 1985, enormous advances have been achieved in institutionalizing
this technology within the criminal justice system in the
United States. While there are now hundreds of stories illustrating
the impact of DNA, the following demonstrates how it has been
assimilated into law enforcement investigations.
A college
professor was raped and murdered in Flint, Michigan in 1986.
A search of the Michigan state fingerprint files was negative
and no suspects were developed in the case. Five years later,
a flight attendant was raped and murdered in a motel in
Romulus, Michigan. Again, there were no suspects. In 2001,
DNA from the 1986 offense was submitted to the Combined
DNA Index System (CODIS) at the state level which matched
it to the 1991 murder. The Flint Police Department's Cold
Case Squad submitted latent fingerprints from the 1986 homicide
to the FBI's Latent Fingerprint Unit. Three latent prints
were searched using the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS) and one of the latent prints
was identified. Rather than immediately arrest the suspect,
the police followed him and retrieved a napkin the suspect
had used in a restaurant. DNA found on the napkin matched
the DNA from both homicides and the suspect was arrested,
charged with both murders and is awaiting trial.
How do
these state and national databases work? The answer is DNA.
DNA is a unique identifier; only identical twins have the
same DNA. DNA is found in almost every cell in the human body
and is exactly the same in every cell. Because it is unique
to each individual, the DNA collected from a crime scene can
be used to eliminate a suspect in a case or link a suspect
to the evidence. Moreover, as illustrated in the case above,
DNA maintains its integrity so that evidence from crimes committed
many years ago may still yield sufficient DNA to conduct an
analysis.
The analysis
or testing of DNA obtained from a crime scene or a convicted
offender's DNA sample will produce a DNA profile - a series
of numbers, each of which represents the result from the analysis
of a specific location on the chromosome called a locus. Generally,
DNA profiles submitted for searching at the national level
must contain information on 13 Short Tandem Repeat (STR) loci.
The STR loci approved for use in CODIS were specifically selected
as law enforcement identification markers because they were
not directly linked to any genetic code or medical condition.
The
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)
The acronym
"CODIS" is used to describe not only the software
used to maintain and run these DNA databases but also the
entire program of software support for Federal, state and
local forensic laboratories as well as the various indices
(Forensic, Offender and Missing Person) at all three levels
- national, state and local. The acronym "NDIS"
stands for the National DNA Index System, one component, albeit
an integral one, of the CODIS program.
One of
the underlying concepts behind the development of CODIS was
to create a database of a state's convicted offender profiles
and use it to solve crimes for which there are no suspects.
Historically, forensic examinations were performed by laboratories
if evidence was available and there was a suspect in the case.
By creating a database of the DNA profiles of convicted sex
offenders and other violent criminals, forensic laboratories
would be able to analyze those cases without suspects and
search those DNA profiles against the database of convicted
offenders and other crime scenes and determine if a serial
or recidivist rapist or murderer was involved. It was expected
that this new tool would enable forensic laboratories to generate
investigative leads or identify suspects in cases, such as
stranger sexual assaults where there may not be any suspects.
The CODIS
program has exceeded these expectations. CODIS began in 1990
as a pilot project with 12 state and local forensic laboratories
and today has 153 participating laboratories representing
49 states and the District of Columbia. The FBI's primary
method of measuring the effectiveness of the CODIS program
is the number of investigations it assists by either identifying
a suspected perpetrator or by linking serial crimes. As of
March, 2002, CODIS has assisted in over 4,719 investigations
in 32 states and two federal laboratories.
The CODIS
software is used to maintain these DNA databases and search
the DNA profile against the DNA profiles of convicted offenders
and other crime scenes. For example, a DNA profile of a suspected
perpetrator is developed from the sexual assault evidence
kit. If there is no suspect in the case or if the suspect's
DNA profile does not match that of the evidence, the laboratory
will search the DNA profile against the Convicted Offender
Index. If there is a match in the Convicted Offender Index,
the laboratory will obtain the identity of the suspected perpetrator.
If there is no match in the Convicted Offender Index, the
DNA profile is searched against the crime scene DNA profiles
contained in the Forensic Index. If there is a match in the
Forensic Index, the laboratory has linked two or more crimes
together and the law enforcement agencies involved in the
cases are able to pool the information obtained on each of
the cases. Matches made by CODIS and confirmed by the participating
laboratories are often referred to as CODIS "hits."
Standards
for Assuring Quality at the National DNA Index
The introduction
of this new technology also brought recognition of the need
for standardized quality assurance protocols. In the 1980's,
the FBI Laboratory convened a group of Federal, state and
local forensic scientists, known as the Technical Working
Group on DNA Analysis Methods or TWGDAM (now known as the
Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods or SWGDAM).
TWGDAM developed the guidelines for a quality assurance program
that were adopted by virtually every laboratory performing
forensic DNA analysis, becoming de facto national guidelines.
The importance
of quality standards was more formally addressed by the DNA
Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. §14131 - enacted
as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 §210304(b)) which required the FBI Director to
empanel a representative body to recommend quality assurance
standards for forensic DNA testing laboratories. The DNA Identification
Act specifically provided that in the interim, until such
standards were developed and issued by the FBI Director, the
TWGDAM Guidelines were to be considered the national quality
standards. This body, known as the DNA Advisory Board, recommended
two sets of quality assurance standards to the FBI Director,
Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories
and Quality Assurance Standards for Convicted Offender
DNA Databasing Laboratories. Both standards were approved
by the FBI Director and were effective October 1, 1998, and
April 1, 1999, respectively (see Attachment A).
The FBI's
efforts to ensure accountability to the DNA Identification
Act have been met with cooperation and compliance by the state
and local forensic laboratories seeking to participate in
the National DNA Index. Once a forensic laboratory agrees
to abide by these quality standards and enters into an agreement
with the FBI governing these federal requirements as well
as NDIS operating procedures, the laboratory will be authorized
to upload their DNA convicted offender, casework and missing
person data to the National DNA Index. Compliance with the
Quality Assurance Standards and NDIS Procedures is monitored
by audits of the participating laboratories
The DNA
Identification Act also authorized the FBI Director to establish
and maintain a national DNA identification index (42 U.S.C.
§14132). The National DNA Index System was implemented
in October, 1998. Today, there are a total of 127 laboratories
representing 41 States and three federal laboratories participating
in the National DNA Index. There are currently over 900,000
convicted offender DNA profiles in NDIS and 33,000 forensic
profiles contributed by participating federal, state and local
laboratories. The DNA Identification Act limits the type of
DNA data that may be maintained in the national database as
well as who may access this data and for what purpose. All
DNA records in NDIS are protected from unauthorized access
through administrative, physical and technical safeguards.
Adherence to the Quality Assurance Standards was required
for the Federal DNA grant programs authorized by the DNA Identification
Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. §3796kk-2(1)) and more recently,
the grant programs authorized by the DNA Analysis Backlog
Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. §14135(d)(2)). It
is important to note that private laboratories under contract
to the public forensic laboratories for analyses of DNA samples
must also satisfy the national Quality Assurance Standards.
Continuation of these and similar requirements to comply with
national Quality Assurance Standards to receive Federal grant
funding and to participate in the National DNA Index promotes
the commitment to quality DNA data.
Success
of CODIS Creates New Demands
An identification
tool that was initially thought to benefit the investigation
of sexual assault cases has proven to have much wider application
in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. States have
observed this first hand with their CODIS hits and sought
to expand coverage of their databases beyond sexual offenses
- first to more serious violent felonies and then all felony
offenses. The states are learning quickly that, the larger
the size of the database, the more crimes that are solved.
Virginia, for example, has long authorized the collection
of DNA samples from all felons, and has achieved remarkable
results in solving rapes, murders, and other crimes with CODIS.
A study of the Virginia system has shown that a large proportion
of its matches in sex offense cases would not have been obtained
if the state had only collected DNA samples from violent offenders.
Rather, the DNA sample which results in the solution of a
rape is often collected on the basis of the offender's conviction
for a nonviolent offense, such as a burglary, a drug offense,
or a theft.
Consistent
with the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. §14132;
authorizing the inclusion of DNA records for persons convicted
of a crime), the FBI supports the inclusion of all felony
offenders in the National DNA Index. Similar benefits could
be expected from expanding DNA sample collection from federal
offenders to include all felons. This approach has previously
received substantial support in Congress. For example, the
DNA legislation sponsored by Senators Kohl and DeWine that
the Senate passed in 1999 title XV of S. 254
would have allowed the collection of DNA samples from all
federal offenders convicted of felonies.
Legislative
activity on DNA database laws has not shown signs of slowing
down since passage of the last state DNA database law in 1998.
Well over half of the states have expanded the offenses included
in their DNA databases. Over the last few years, hundreds
of bills have been introduced in state legislatures across
the country to expand coverage of state DNA databases. Many
of these proposals have been successful and there are now
19 states with laws authorizing the collection of DNA samples
from all felony offenders (see Attachment B). These
legislative efforts to include all felons are commendable.
But we know from our annual survey of CODIS laboratories that
the majority of states are unable to keep pace with the collection
of these convicted offender samples. Federal funding provided
under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 has
had significant positive impact on these backlogs, but the
reality is that new backlogs will continue to be created as
states expand their database laws.
The DNA
legislation goes beyond expanding the qualifying offenses
to other areas intended to ensure the prosecution of crimes
solved using DNA analysis and CODIS. For example, dozens of
proposals have been introduced to extend or eliminate the
Statute of Limitation for sexual assaults or permitting the
issuance of a warrant or indictment listing the DNA profile
of an unknown person.
Hand
in hand with the need for comprehensive coverage of all felony
offenders in these DNA databases is the importance of analyzing
the biological evidence collected from crime scenes, regardless
of whether a suspect has been identified in that case. A large
national database containing the DNA profiles of all felons
by itself cannot solve crimes. We know that. We also know
that state and local laboratories do not currently have the
capacity to analyze all the cases with biological evidence
that are submitted to them. Because of limited capacities,
laboratories are forced to prioritize their cases based upon
court dates and whether or not a suspect has been identified.
Unfortunately, those cases for which there are no suspects
- and the cases for which CODIS was specifically designed
to help solve - remain unanalyzed in laboratory storage or
police department evidence rooms. Nowhere is this more evident
than the examples we hear of sexual assault or rape kits by
the hundreds, or even thousands, gathering dust in storage
- awaiting analysis. The difficulties inherent in determining
the precise number of these unanalyzed rape kits nationwide
should not deter us from addressing this issue. Until the
laboratories have the capacity to analyze every case with
biological evidence, CODIS will continue to be underutilized.
To better
serve the criminal justice system, once the backlog of rape
kits and other crime scene evidence is analyzed, laboratories
will want to reduce the turn-around time for analyzing their
casework. An obvious goal of this policy would be to assure
that suspects in custody would not be detained indefinitely
awaiting DNA testing results. By making DNA testing available
for all cases involving biological evidence and providing
reasonable turn-around times, quicker results eliminating
suspects would allow law enforcement to quickly refocus their
efforts earlier the investigation.
Because
of the success of these DNA databases and their remarkable
expansion, they are quickly approaching the capacity originally
designed for CODIS. The expansion of state DNA database laws
to all felony offenders and analysis of increasing numbers
of casework samples translates into an increased number of
profiles entered into and searched in CODIS. Moreover, as
the number of CODIS laboratories has steadily increased over
the years, the tiered architecture has not changed, necessitating
maintenance of and user support for multiple versions of software.
The FBI has been monitoring the legislative activity and planning
for this eventuality. With the approval and support of the
Attorney General, the FBI is undertaking the redesign of the
CODIS system to enhance the system's storage and searching
capacities and provide more immediate access to national searches.
Efforts
undertaken several years ago to design a new matching algorithm
capable of searching millions of profiles in seconds, or even
microseconds, are coming to fruition and we will now turn
our attention to integration of this new search engine into
CODIS. Completion of these upgrades is dependent upon funding
requested in the Fiscal Year 2003 budget. The CODIS redesign
includes an increased capacity to accommodate 50 million DNA
profiles. Other plans include increasing the frequency with
which searches of the National DNA Index are performed so
that as soon as new DNA data is uploaded, it would be searched
and available for appropriate follow-up by the laboratory
and law enforcement agency. Central management of the software
applications and databases will be included in order to reduce
the hardware and software maintenance costs for the participating
laboratories and the FBI. And lastly, as all public DNA laboratories
seek participation in the national system, the telecommunication
circuits and routers must be upgraded and network maintenance
provided to the participating state and local laboratories.
Finally,
as forensic laboratories increase their capacities and begin
to eliminate their convicted offender and casework backlogs,
we must publicize the benefits of this technology for eliminating
and incriminating suspects. Building upon educational efforts
begun with the our publication on "Guidelines for the
Collection and Preservation of DNA Evidence," and the
more recent brochure and training CD entitled "What Every
Law Enforcement Officer Should Know About DNA," developed
by the Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, the importance
of DNA evidence should be common knowledge among law enforcement
and criminal justice personnel. Training curricula for every
law enforcement recruit should include, as a matter of routine,
procedures for the proper collection and storage of DNA evidence.
Cold case squads, similar to the one described in the Michigan
case, exist in many jurisdictions to review old unsolved cases
for any biological evidence and if available, submission to
the forensic laboratory for analysis and entry into CODIS.
Solving these old cases brings a measure of closure for victims
and their families, such as the Scovilles. David and Ann Scoville,
whose daughter Patricia was raped and murdered in Vermont,
have championed the cause of DNA databases and are recipients
of the Attorney General's Crime Victim Service Award for 2002.
The DNA evidence in Patricia's case is searched in the National
DNA Index, but the case remains unsolved.
The foundation for the use of CODIS as an investigative tool
has been established. The FBI Laboratory is committed to the
support of the CODIS program. Considering how much has been
accomplished in such a relatively short period with the cooperation
and collaboration of legislative bodies and all components
of the criminal justice community - law enforcement, crime
laboratories, victims, prosecutors and the judiciary - the
future of DNA and CODIS holds even greater promise, and hopefully
closure for the Scovilles.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee
and provide this update on CODIS and DNA databases. Thank
you.
FEDERAL & STATE*
DNA DATABASE LAWS
QUALIFYING OFFENSES
1 Applies to persons sentenced to the custody of the Department
of Corrections for a felony offense beginning March 31,
2002.
2 Applies to felony offenses
as of July 1, 2005.
3 Effective the later of July 1, 2002 or the date when sufficient
funds have been appropriated or are first received to pay
the costs of compliance.
4 The Act provides that
actual compliance with the collection from offenders convicted
of other than sex offenses may be delayed until funding
is available for their full implementation
5 Effective September 1, 2000, Louisiana was authorized to collect
a DNA sample from persons arrested for a qualifying offense (includes sex offenses, murder,
battery-related offenses, stalking and kidnapping).
6 The Act is
contingent on the receipt of a binding written grant award
of at least $1.5 million by September 1, 2002 or the Act
shall be null and void. Effective October 1, 2002 and remains
in effect for 1 year until September 30, 2003 when it shall
be abrogated and of no further force and
7 The addition of the murder,
assault, robbery and kidnapping offenses is effective beginning
7/1/2001 and expires as of 7/31/04.
8 The addition of "crimes of violence" (assault,
robbery, kidnapping and burglary) take effect upon
receipt by State of Federal funding.
9 Texas has passed a law requiring the collection of a DNA sample
from persons indicted for certain felonies (aggravated kidnapping,
indecency with a child, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, prohibited sexual conduct, burglary, compelling
prostitution, sexual performance by a child or possession/promotion
of child pornography) or arrested for a felony after having
a previous conviction or deferred adjudication for one of
the felonies listed above. The new law requires that DNA
records created under this section shall be segregated from
the DNA records of convicted persons. Additionally, persons
convicted of the listed offenses shall be assessed a $250
court cost. Applies to a defendant arrested on or after
February 1, 2002.
10 Please note that the effective date to collect from inmates
serving a sentence for a felony in the institutional division
is when the Director of the Department of Public Safety
certifies to the Governor et al. that the State has received
funds from the Federal government or other sources sufficient
to pay all costs associated with expanding the list of offenses.
See Section 5 of H.B. 588.
11 Effective July 1, 2002.
12 Effective July 1, 2002.
* Includes
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
and the Department of Defense.
States listed in bold cover
all felony offenders.
Key for Retroactive Listings
I Incarceration
P Parole
PR Probation
13 Applies to persons convicted of a felony after July 1, 2002.
|
|