West Virginia House of Delegates Rejects DNA Collection Bill
W.Va. Legislative Photography Trending
CHARLESTON -- A bipartisan debate broke out in the West Virginia House of Delegates Thursday between the body's civil libertarians and law-and-order Republicans over a bill expanding DNA collection.
Meanwhile, a bill dealing with homemade moonshine that passed narrowly out of the House Wednesday nearly came back to the floor Thursday with questions raised about the process.
The House rejected House Bill 4627, relating to DNA data maintained for law enforcement purposes, in a 30-66 vote Thursday afternoon.
That was after two attempts to postpone action on the bill failed and delegates adopted a motion to end debate on the bill after nearly an hour of discussion.
The bill, as amended by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week, would require the collection of DNA from an adult qualified arrestee taken into law enforcement custody for a felony crime of violence against a person, burglary, or a felony offense where the victim was a child.
The DNA would be collected and submitted to the West Virginia DNA Database, and would be collected prior to having their case heard in court and/or convicted. The bill sets up an appeal process to allow the individual to request their DNA taken out of the database in the event of being found not guilty, acquitted, or charges dropped.
Supporters of the bill see it as a way to quickly identify potential repeat offenders, especially of child abusers, who may have committed previous crimes where only DNA was obtained as the scene.
"If we do not pass this bill, there will be someone who is the victim of a crime and we'll never identify the person who committed that crime again," said Del. J.B. Akers, R-Kanawha.
"The bottom line is to this whole thing: if you don't want your DNA taken, then don't do a heinous crime and be a felon," said Del. Scott Heckert, R-Wood.
But several delegates, both Republicans and Democratic members, raised privacy concerns about collecting DNA for individuals who had been convicted of no crime.
"This is extremely broad," said House Minority Whip Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio. "This is dangerous ... we're talking about arrests. Multiple people can be arrested for a proceeding crime. Those individuals will then be a part of this DNA database without being found guilty by a jury of their peers."
"In our country, we are a free society and it is upon us to guard our liberties," said Del. D. Rolland Jennings, R-Preston. "This is just another step away from our liberties."
House Judiciary Committee Vice Chairman David Kelly, R-Tyler, voted against the bill, citing the contentious floor debate and the need to work further on the issue to allay members' concerns.
"I came in here today with my hand ready to go to the green button," Kelly said. "It's not a bad idea; I like the concept. But I don't like confusion ... I certainly don't want us to pass out of here a piece of legislation in here today and say 'let the Senate fix it.' That's not what we're here to do. We're here to pass out good legislation from this House."
Later in the floor session, Del. Keith Marple, R-Harrison, made a motion to reconsider his vote for House Bill 4793, relating to moonshine. The bill passed the House Wednesday in a 49-48 vote with two members absent.
HB 4793 would allow an adult age 21 to manufacture up to 50 gallons per year of liquor for personal or family use if there is more than one person over the age of 21 in the home, or 25 gallons for an individual. The bill prohibits the sale of the personally manufactured moonshine.
Marple's motion to reconsider the vote was tabled in a motion offered by Del. Brandon Steele, R-Raleigh, in a 61-35 vote. But not before some members questioned why out of the eight bills that passed the House Wednesday, why the passage of HB 4793 had not been communicated to the state Senate.
According to House Rules, a motion to reconsider a vote is not in order if the bill is no longer in the possession of the House. But according to the Legislature's website, HB 4793 was communicated to the Senate.
"I find that kind of interesting," Smith said. "If that can happen to this bill, I wonder if it happens with another bill."
"Something happened today, and I'm not sure what it was, but I smell a fish," said Del. Todd Longanacre, R-Greenbrier. "We owe it to the people of the great State of West Virginia to be transparent with what we're doing. I didn't support that bill, but I do support the rules of the body regardless of what kind of legislation it is. ... something is afoul."