G en. 135] 135
CRI M I NAL P ROCE DURE
DNA D ATA BAS E

– I N T E R P R E T A T I ON OF S T AT UT E T HAT A UTHORIZES DNA S A M P L I N G OF I NMATES W HO H AV E B EEN P RE VI OUS L Y C ONVI CT E D OF Q UA L I FYI NG O FFENSES

J une 20, 2006

M r. J o h n T o b in D i r ector, For ens i c Sci ence s D i vis i on Mar yland St at e Pol i ce

Y ou have a s ked forouropi ni on conce r ni ng t he author i t yof the M a ry lan d S tate P o lice F o re n sic S c ien c e D iv isio n (“ C rim e L a b ” ) to in c lu d e c e rta in D N A sa m p les in th e sta tew id e D N A d a ta b a se . S tate l aw m andat es t hatD N A s ampl e s b e col l ect ed fr om cert ai n cat egor i es of i ndi vi dual s
. O ne cat egory cons i s t s of i ndi vi dual s w ho have be en convi ct ed of c er tai n q u al i fy i ng offe ns es i n t he pas tand w ho r emai ned i ncar cer at ed af t er O ctober 1, 1999. W i t h r es pectt o t hat cat egory , y ou as k: (1 ) M a yth e C rim e L a b c o llec t an d m a in tain a D N A sa m p le fr om an i nm at e w ho w as i m pr i s oned forbot h qual i fy i ng and nonqual i fy i ng offe ns es w i t houtdet er m i ni ng w hether t he port i on of the se n ten c e a ttribu tab le to th e q u a lify in g o f f e n se h a s b e e n c o m p lete ly s er ved? (2 ) M a yth e C rim e L a b c o llec t an d m a in tain a D N A sa m p le f ro m a n in m a te w h o h a s b e e n c o n v ic te d o f a q u a lify in g o f

f e n se in t he pas t , but w ho i s curr ent l y s er vi ng a s ent ence for a non- qual i fy i ng offe ns e?
I n ouropi ni on, t he r el evants t atut e does notr equi r e t hatan in m a te b e c u r r e n tlyse rv in g a se n ten c e f o r a q u a lify in g o f

f e n se in or dert o be el i gi bl e forD N A s ampl i ng, s o l ong as t he i nm at e has b e e n c o n v ic te d a t s o m e tim e o f a q u a lif y in g o f f e n s e
.1 3 6 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y
I Backg r ound
A
. S tatew i de D N

A D ata B ase
D N A s t ands fordeoxyr i bonucl ei c ac i d, a s ubs t ance t hatcarr i es g e n e t i c i n f

o r ma t i o n i n h u ma n b e i n g s
. Co mp a r i s o n s o f DNA evi dence w i t h know n s ampl es can l ead t o the ident i fi cat i on of i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved i n cr i m es orothe ri nci dent s
. T he r es ul t s of s uch compar i s ons ar e ther efor e adm issi b l e i n cr i m i nal cas es and o th e r p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r c e rt a in c o n d itio n s
. See 89 O pi ni ons of

the A t t or ney G ener al1 8 9 (20 0 4 ).
S t a t e l a w d i r e c t s t h e Cr i me L a b t o ma i n t a i n a s t a t e wi d e DNA d a ta b a se a n d D N A re p o sito ry . A n n o tate d C o d e o f M a ry lan d , P u b lic SafetyA r t i cl e ( “PS”) , §2

- 502. T he dat a bas e cons i s t s of i dent i fi c a t i on char act er i s t i cs of D N A s ampl es s t or ed i n t he s t at ew i de D N A r epos i t or y
. PS §2-50 6

. T h e r epos i t or ycons i s t s l ar gel yof s ampl es obt ai ned fr om i ndi vidu als w ho have be en convi ct ed of f e lo n ies o r tw o o th e r p re d ica te o f f e n se s: b u rg lar yin th e f o u rth degr ee ( A nnot at ed C ode of M ary l and, C r i m i nal L aw A r t i cl e §6- 205) and bre aki ng and ent er i ng a mot orvehi cl e ( C r i m i nal L aw A r t i cl e §6- 206)

. T he D N A dat a bas e l aw iden ti fi es t he i ndi vi dual s t o be sam pled as fol l ow s:

( 1)

. . . [A ] n i ndi vi dual w ho i s convi ct ed of a fe l onyor a vi ol at i on of §6- 205 or§6- 206 of th e C rim in a l L a w A rticle sh a ll: (i) h a v e a D N A sa m p le col l ect ed ei t heratthe t i m e of s ent ence oron intake t o a corr ect i onal fac i l i t y , i f the i ndi vi dual i s s ent ence d t o a t er m of i m pr i s onm ent ; or (i i ) provide a D N A sam ple as a condi t i on of s ent ence orpr obat i on, i f the i ndivi dual i s nots ent ence d t o a t er m of im p riso n m e n t. ( 2) A n i ndi vi dual w ho w as convi ct ed of a fe l onyor a vi ol at i on of §6-205 or §6- 206 of t he C r i m i nal L aw A r t i cl e on or befor e O ct ober 1, 2003 and w ho r em ains confi ned i n aG en. 135] 137

Apparently , conflictingadvicehas been g iven informally in the 1 past by att o rn ey s advisingthe Depa rtment of Public Safety and Correc tional Services a

nd the Depa

rtment of S tate P olice as to whether the data ba se law a

uth orize d sampl ing of an indivi du a l wh o wa s curren tly servinga sente nce f

or a non- qualifying of

fense , but who had been convicted of

a qualify ing of fensein the past. corr ect i onal fac i l i t yon o r a ft erO ct ober1, 1999, s hal l s ubm i ta D N A s ampl e t o t he D e p a rtm e n t. PS §2- 504( a)

. T he C our t of A ppeal s has hel d t hatt he col l ect i on of D N A s ampl es fr om i ncar cer at ed i ndi vi dual s i s cons t i tut i o n al and d o e s n o t v io la te th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. St at e v. R ai nes , 38 3 M d. 1 , 8 5 7 A

. 2 d 1 9 (20 0 4 ).
Y ourt w o ques t i ons r el at e t o D N A s ampl i ng of i nm at es
. T he ans w er s t o bot h ques t i ons tur n on w hethert he st atute l i m i t s t he u n iverse o f inm ates to b e sam p led to tho se se rvin g a se n tenc e f o r a qual i fy i ng offe ns e att he t i m e of s ampl i ng. 1

II
A n a ly sis
A
. Statutor

y Lan guage
T h e DNA d a t a b a s e l a w a u t h o r i z e s t h e DNA s a mp l i n g o f t wo cat egor i es o f co nvi ct s : ( 1) t hos e new l yconvi ct ed of qua l i fy i ng off enses and (2) i nm at es previ ou sl ycon vict ed o f t ho se offen ses. T he s t atut e des cr i bes t he s econd cat egory t o i ncl ude an “i ndi vi dual w ho w as convi ct ed of [a qual i fy i ng offe ns e] on orbefor e O ct ober1, 2003 and w ho r em ai ns conf i ned i n a cor r ect i onal fac i l i t yon oraft er O ctob er 1 , 1 9 9 9

. . . . ” P S § 2 -50 4 (a)(2) (em p h asis ad d ed ).
T h e m e a n in g o f th e v e rb p h ra se “ re m a in s c o n f in e d ” is som ew hat am biguou s, bu ti s cr i t i cal t o the answ er t o y ou r quest i on s. Fi r s t , i tcoul d be i nt erpr et ed t o m ean t hat t he i nm at e i s s t i l l s er vi ng t h e s e nt e n c e f

o rt h e c o n v i c t i o n r e f

e r e n c e d e a r l i e ri n t h e s a me s ent ence – i.e

. , t h e o f f e n s e t h a tq u a l i f

i e s t h e i n ma t e f

o rDNA s amp li n g
. U ndert hi s i nt erpr et at i on, once the s ent ence fort he qual i fy i ng offe ns e i s compl et el y s er ved, t he i nm at e no lon ger qual i fi es for D N A t es t i ng, even i f t he i nm at e i s s t i l l i ncar cer at ed as1 3 8 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y

SeeRoge t’s International Thesaur us (3d ed. 1962) at p. 1097. 2 a r es ul tof ot heroffe ns es
. T hi s i nt erpr et at ion w oul d r equi r e a det erm ina t i on of t he pr eci s e bas i s of the i nm at e’ s curr ent c o n f in e m e n t. Second, t he phr as e coul d s i gni fyonl yt hatt he i nm at e has been cont i nuous l yi ncar cer at ed s i nce the co n v ict i on fort he qual i fy i ng o ff en se, w ith o u t im p ly ing an y co n d it ion o n the b asis o f th e inm ate’s c u rre n t c o n f

in e m e n t. U n d e r th is in ter p re tatio n , o n e n e e d o n ly det er m i ne thatt he i nm at e w as pr evi ous l y convi ct ed of a qua l i fy i ng o f f e n s e a n d h a s n o tb e e n r e l e a s e d f r o m c u s t o d yi n t h e i n t e r i m. Fi nal l y , t he w or d “r emai ns ” maybe us ed s i m pl yi n t he s ens e of

“ is p re se n t” a n d is n o t m e a n t to sig n if yth a t th e in m a te h a s b e e n in 2 cont i nuous confi nement nor t hat t he curr ent confi nement i s bas ed on t he qual i fy i ng convi ct i on. U nderthis int erpr et at i on, t he pr i or convi ct ion fo r a q u ali fy ing o ff en se c o u p led w ith cu rr entconfi nement re n d e rs th e in m a te e lig ib le f o r sa m p lin g
. T h e re w o u ld b e n o n e e d to p a r s e o u t wh a t s e n t e n c e o r s e n t e n c e s t h e i n ma t e i s s e r v i n g a tt h e t i me of s ampl i ng or t o i nves t i gat e w hethert he i ndi vi dual had bee n outof St at e cus t odys i nce the t i m e of the qual i fy i ng convi ct i on.
T o selec t am o n g thes e a lt ern ati v es, w e loo k to relev an t cou rt deci s i ons and the l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yof the D N A dat a bas e s t atut e. B. Cour t

D e c is i ons
T o o u r k n o w led g e , n o M a ry lan d re p o rte d d e c isio n d ire c tly addr es s es y ourques t i ons
. H ow ever , t he ci r cumst ance s of the R ai nes cas e l end s om e suppor t t o a re adi ng of t he s t atut e thatw oul d m ake a n i n ma t e wi t h a p a s tq u a l i f y i n g c o n v i c t i o n e l i g i b l e f o rDNA sam p li n g , re g ard less o f th e b asis o r co n ti n u ityo f th e inm ate’s curr entconfi nement – t he thi r d al t ernat i ve out l i ned above

. A s not ed prev iou s l y , i n R ai nes , t he C our tof A ppeal s addr es s ed the c o n stitu tio n a lityo f

th e D N A sa m p lin g a u th o riz e d b yth e D N A d a ta bas e s t atut e. I n s et t i ng outt he fa ct s of t he cas e, t he C our tnot ed that R aine s q u ali fied fo r D N A sam p li n g as a r esu lt o f his 1 9 8 2 rob b ery convi ct i on and that , att he t i m e of s ampl i ng i n 1999, he w as i n c a r c e r a t e d f

o r a n o t h e ro f

f e n s e u n r e l a t e d t o t h e 1 9 8 2 r o b b e r y. R ai nes , 383 M d

. a t5 n
. 5

. Th u s , i ta p p e a r s t h a tRa i n e s was n ot nece s s ar i l yi ncarce r at ed fora qual i fy i ng offe ns e att he t i m e of the D N A s ampl i ng – oratl eas tt hatt he C our tbel i eved thati tm ade noG en. 135] 139

It is po ssible th at, a s a

re su lt o f a

pa ro levio latio n b a se d o n h is 3 s u b s equ entcr i m i n al ac t i v i ty , R a i n e s m i ghth av e a l s o b ee ns erv i n g a portion of the 1982 sente nce a t the time of his DNA sampling . However, the Court did not explore that issue.
An earlier version of the st atute was even c learer, providing f or 4 DNA sampling of an individual who had been convicted of a qu alifying offe nse “a

nd who is still servinga ter m of confine ment in conn ec t i on there with...” 837 A.2d at 653. d if f e re n c e in lig h t o f h is 19 8 2 q u a lify in g c o n v ictio n
. T h e C o u rt d id 3 nots peci fi cal l y addr es s t he propr i ety of sampl i ng an i ndi vi dual w ho w as c u r r e n t l yi n c a r c e r a t e d f o ra n o n - q u a l i f

y i n g o f f e n s e , a s Ra i n es ap p a re n tl yh ad n o t r aised that issue

. N ev erthe less, the C o u rt appea r ed t o acc eptt he i dea thatt he s t atut e author i zed s uch a s ampl i ng i f t he i n d ividu al had bee n pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a qual i fy i ng offe ns e. C our t s i n t w o ot hers t at es have r eac hed di ffe r i ng concl us i ons o n w h e th e r a sta te D N A sa m p lin g law a p p lies to a n in m a te pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a qual i fy i ng offe ns e but curr ent l ys er vi ng a s ent ence fora non- qual i fy i ng offe ns e. T hes e dec i s i ons ar e of l i mi t ed ut i l i t yi n cons t rui ng PS §2- 504( a) as they tur n, t o s om e ext ent , on t he par t i cul arl anguage of s t atut es t hat ar e not i dent i cal t o t he M ary l and l a w.
I n Sm i th v. D epar tm ent of C or r ect i ons , 837 A

. 2d 652 ( Pa. C o m m . C t. 20 0 3 ), th e re lev a n t P e n n sy lv a n ia s tatu te p ro v id e d th a t a per s on w ho had bee n convi ct ed o f a qua l i fy i ng offe ns e “a nd w ho se rv e s a ter m o f

c o n f in e m e n t i n connec t i on ther ew i th on or aft er[the eff ect i ve dat e of the s t atut e] s hal l notbe r el ea s ed i n anym anner unl es s and unt i l a D N A s ampl e has been w i t hdr aw n. ” 837 A

. 2d at 654 ( emphasi s added)

. R el y i ng on t he l i t er al l anguage of the s t atue, 4 t he courthel d t hatt he s t atut e di d notauthor i ze D N A s ampl i ng of an i ndi vi dual w ho had pr evi ous l ybeen convi ct ed of a qual i fy i ng offe ns e, butw ho w as cu rre nt l yconfi ned fora non- qual i fy i ng o f f e n s e
. I d. ; see al so C om m on w ealth v. D erk , 895 A

. 2d 622, 631- 32 ( Pa. Sup. C t

. 2006)

. T he i ncl us i on of the phr as e “i n connec ti on t her ew i t h ” i n t he Penns y l vani a s t atut e cl ear l ym akes a conne ct i on b e tw e e n th e q u a lify in g c o n v ictio n a n d c u rre n t co n f in e m e n t a co n d it ion o f D N A sam p li n g o f inm ates. N o sim il ar p h rase ap p ea rs i n t he M ary l and s t atut e.1 4 0 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y
I n Mur phy v. D epar tm ent

of C or r ect i on , 711 N

. E

. 2d 149 ( M as s
. Sup. J ud. C t

. 1999) , t he M assa ch us et t s Supr eme Judi ci al C our tcons t rued a s t at e s t atut e that r equi r ed D N A s ampl i ng of any in d iv id u a l c o n v ic te d o f a q u a lif y in g o f f e n s e “ w h o is in c a rc e ra te d

... on t he ef fec t i ve dat e of thi s act , not w i t hs t anding the dat e of s uch c o n v ictio n
.. .. ” 7 1 1 N .E .2 d a t 1 5 1 . A n in m a te w h o h a d p re v io u sly b e e n c o n v ic te d o f

a q u a lify in g o f

f e n se , b u t w h o w a s c u rre n tly s er vi ng a s ent ence fora non- qual i fy i ng o ff ense, ar gued thatt he s t atut e onl yappl i ed t o t hos e i nm at es w ho w er e curr ent l ys er vi ng s e n te n c e s f

o r q u a lif y in g o f f e n s e s
. Id

. T h e S u p rem e Jud ici al C o u rt hel d t hat t he s t atut or yl anguage “i s cl ear ; i tr equi r es anyper s on ever convi cted of a l i s t ed off ens e, w ho i s i ncar cer at ed on the ef fec t i ve dat e of the s t atut e, t o pr ovi de a D N A s ampl e. ” I d. at 1 5 2

. T h e c o u rt obs er ved thatt hi s cons t ruct i on not onl ys ui t ed the l i t er al l anguage of th e sta tu te, b u t als o c a rrie d o u t th e p o lic y u n d e r ly in g th e sta tu te to i dent i fyo r e x cl ude i ndi vi dual s forcr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on and pr o s e c u t i o n
. “ Th e Le g i s l a tu r e h a s e v i d e n t l y d e t e r mi n e d t h a tt he s t atut or ypurpos e i s bes ts er ved bycol l ec ti n g D N A s ampl es fr om i ndi vi dual s convi ct ed of [ qual i fy i ng offe ns es ]

. I ti s ent i r el yr at i onal t hat , i n pur s ui tof the s t atut or ygoal , t he Legi s l atur e s houl d pr ovi de forcol l ect i on of D N A s ampl es fr om as m any of thes e i ndi vi dual s as pos s i bl e. ” I

d. T he courtr easo n ed thati tw as al s o r at i onal fort he L egis l ature n o t to requi re that s am ples be taken from t ho se p re v io u sly c o n v icte d o f q u a lify in g o f f e n se s w h o w e re n o t cu rre n tly in c o n f in e m e n t, giv e n th e b u rd e n o f lo c a tin g a n d se n d in g o f f ice rs to c o lle c t s a m p le s f

ro m th o s e in d iv id u a ls

. I d.
W h ile P S § 2 -5 0 4 (a ) is n o t id e n tica l to th e M a ss a c h u se tts st atute, as noted abo ve, i tw ou l d be i nterpret ed si m i l arl yi f t he p hrase “r emai ns i ncar cer at ed” i n t he M ary l and st atut e w as m eantt o convey t he same m eani ng as “i s i ncar cer at ed” ( t he t hi r d al t ernat i ve out l i ned above) or“i s confi ned” ( t he M as s achus ett s s t atut e)

. A r evi ew of the l egi s l at i ve hi s t o ryof PS §2-504( a) r evea l s t hati tw as i ns pi r ed by p o licyc o n c e rn s s im ilar to th o se a r ti c u late d b yth e M a ss a c h u se tts c o u rt.
C
. L egis lati ve History
T he M ary l and D N A dat a bas e l aw w as fi r s tenac t ed i n 1994. C h a p te r 4 5 8 , L a w s o f

M a ryla n d 1 9 9 4 , th e n c o d ifi e d a t Ar t i c l e 8 8 B, §12A

. I t w as t he pr oductof an A dm i ni s t r at i on bi l l t hatw as i nt ended t o cr eat e a St at e D N A dat a b ase s i m i l art o thos e es t abl i s hed i n at l eas t22 ot her s t at es , w hi ch w oul d al l ow t he St at e t o par t i ci pat e i n a nat i onw i de D N A dat a bas e netw or k m ai nt ai ned byt he Feder alG en. 135] 141

T h e d ata b a s e n e tw o r

k is kn o wn a s th e Co mb in e d DNA Index 5 Sy stem (CODI S). See42 U.S.C. §14135. B u rea u o f In v esti g ati o n
. T esti m o n y o f K ev in H u g h es, G o v ern o r’s 5 L egi s l at i ve O ffi ce, and C ol

. L arr yT ol l i ver , Super i nt endentof M ary l and St at e Pol i ce be for e the Sen at e J udi ci al Pr ocee di ngs C o m m ittee o n H o u se B il l 4 1 0 (19 9 4 ). T h e p u rpo se o f th e n etw o rk w a s to a ss is t la w e n f

o rc e m e n t ag e n c ies th ro u g h o u t th e n a tio n in sol ving cri m es i nv olvi ng repeat off end ers , as w el l as t o d et er tho se o f f e n d e rs
. A l t ho u gh m at chi ng of evi dent i aryD N A s ampl es w as s een a s an ef fec t i ve t ool fo r law enfor cement , t he l ack of a dat a bas e of D N A p ro f

iles f o r c o m p a riso n w a s a stu m b lin g b lo c k . “T h e b ill [w a s ] de s i gn e d t o s ol ve t hi s pr ob l e m by c r e a t i ng a da t a base composed of s ampl es obt ai ned fr om per s ons convi ct ed of se xual o ff en ses.” F loo r R ep o rtfo r H o u se B il l 41 0 (19 9 4 ).
T o eff i ci ent l y popul at e t he dat a bas e w i t h D N A s ampl es t hat w o u ld lik e lyse rv e its law e n f o rc e m e n t p u rp o se s, th e sta tu te nece s s ar i l yhad t o defi ne a popul at i on fors am p li n g t hatcoul d be r eac hed i n a cos t

- eff

ecti v e m anner
. T he A dm i ni s t r at i on t ar get ed know n s ex off

ender s curr ent l y i ncar cer at ed or on par ol e as t he i ni t i al source of sam ples for t he d at a base. T est i m on yo f K evin H ug hes, G o v e rn o r’ s L e g is la tiv e O f f i c e , a n d C o l. L a rr yT o lliv e r, supra
. It w as e sti m ated that 5 , 0 0 0 inca rc e ra ted o r pa roled sex o ff en d ers w o u ld b e im m e d iate lye lig ib le to b e sa m ple d u n d e r th e p ro p o se d b ill

. I d. O t hert ypes of off

ender s w er e t o be adde d i n t he fut ur e, butt he o rig in a l p ro p o sa l w a s lim ited to se x o f f e n d e r s so a s n o t to “o v erw h elm the sy stem ” as i t w as l au n ch ed

. I d. U ndert he bi l l as or i gi nal l yi nt r oduced, pr o v isi o n of a D N A s ampl e bys uch an i ndi vi dual w oul d be a c ondi t i on of r el eas e fr om cu st odyor s u p e rv is io n . H o u s e B ill 4 1 0 , f ir s t r e a d e r ( 1 9 9 4 ).
T h u s , t h e p r o p o s e d b i l l l i mi t e d t h e i n i t i a l s a mp l i n g i n t wo w ay s
. Fi r s t , i t fo cu sed on convi ct ed s ex off ender s – a ca t egoryof offe nder s s een as pr one t o r eci di vi s m w hos e off ens es oft en i nvol ved D N A evi dence and w ho m i ght be ef fec t i vel ydet err ed ordet ect ed by t he cr eat i on of t he dat a bas e. Second, i t l i m i t ed t he popul at i on of s ex offe nder s to b e sampl ed t o t hos e on par ol e ori n cus t ody

. I n t hat w a y , the b ill f

o c u s e d o n a su b se t w h o se lo c a tio n w a s p re su m a b ly al r eadyk n o wn t o c r i mi n a l j u s t i c e a u t h o r i t i e s a n d o v e rwho m t he S t at e cou l d ex ertsom e l everage in obtai ning t he requ i red sam ples

.1 4 2 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y

A s e ntenc ein t

heF loo r Repo rt

c ou ld b eint e rp re te d to e xpre ss a 6 narrower view of th e p o p u l ati on subject to sampling. It stated that “the data ba se will contain DNA samples onl y from persons who are convic ted of certain sexual offense s or who are already servin g terms of imp ri so nmentfor such offenses .” F loor Report for House Bill 410 (1994) at p.2 (e mphasis added) . This sentencecou l d be re ad to mean that the only inmates to be sampled wo u l dbe those c urrently servingterms for quali f yin go f f e n s e s
. H o w e v e r , n e it

h e r th is s e nten c en o r

th er e s t o f

the F loor Repo rt

purp or te d to e xemp t c ate g orie s o f indivi du a ls p revio us ly convicted of

qualifyin g o ff

enses from sampling. A s noted above , the prop on e nts of

the data ba selaw f

oc us e d o n inmate s and

oth e r indivi du a ls under thesupervision of the State a s a method for quickly populating the data ba se in a c ost-eff

ective ma nner. A s not ed above , t he bi l l , as or i gi nal l y i nt r oduced, w oul d have pr ovi ded forD N A s ampl i ng of al l i ndi vi dual s w ho had bee n c o n v i c t e d o f

c e r t a i n s e x o f

f e n s e s a n d wer e e i t h e ri n c u s t o d yo ron par ol e. C oncerns appar ent l yw er e r ai s ed aboutt he l o g ist i cs and expens e of f

i ndi ng and obt ai ni ng s ampl es fr om t he off ender s w ho w er e noti n t he St at e’ s phy s i cal cus t ody

. A s a re s ul t , t he A dm i ni s t r at i on offe r ed an a m endment , ad o p t ed byt he G ener al A s s embl y , t hat r emoved par ol ees fr om t he l i s tof off ender s r equi r ed t o s ubm i tt o D N A s ampl i ng. A dm i ni s t r at i on r epr es ent at i ves s t at ed th a t th e a m e n d m e n t w a s “ s tr i c t l y a c o s t c o n ta in m e n t m e a s u re ,” r educi ng t he ant i ci pat ed cos tof the pr ogr am for the fi r s ty earfr om $1. 4 m il l i on t o under$1 m i l l i on forfi s cal y ear1995. L et t erfr om K evi n H ughes , A s s i s t antL egi s l at i ve O ffi cer , O ffi ce of t he G ov ernor, t o the H on orabl e Joseph V al l ari o, C hairm an, H ou se Ju d icia ryC o m m itt e e (M a rc h 1 5 , 1 9 9 4 ). It is e v id e n t th a t, ev e n w ith t hi s amendm ent , t he i nt entw as t o s ampl e as m anyi ndi vi dual s w ho h a d b e e n c o n v icte d o f

th e q u a lify in g o f

f e n se s a s p o ss ib le w ith in fi s cal cons t r ai nt s
. T her e i s no i ndi cat i on i n t he l egi s l at i ve r ecor d t hat t he G ener al A s s embl yi ntend ed t o m ake f i ne di s t i nct i ons as t o t he bas i s fora part i cul aroffe nder ’ s curr enti ncar cer at i on. 6
A s ul t i m at el yenac t ed i n 1994, t he s t atut e r equi r ed any one convi ct ed of a “qual i fy i ng cr i m e of vi ol ence ” – att hatt i m e def i ned to in c lu d e c e rta in se x u a l o f f e n se s – to p ro v id e a D N A sa m p le fol l ow i ng s ent enci ng. I tfur t herpr ovi ded thatan i ndi vi dual w ho had been c onvi ct ed of s uch an of fens e pr i ort o t he ef

fec t i ve dat e of the st atute and “w ho rem ai ns i ncarc erat ed o n thatdate” w ou l d als o pr ovi de a D N A s ampl e. For m erA r t i cl e 88B , §12A ( d)

. A s pr edi ct ed w hen t he ori gi nal bi l l w as pr es ent ed t o t he Legi s l atur e i n 1994, t he s t atut e has s ubs equent l ybeen a m ended t o expand the r ange of q u a lif y in g o f f e n s e s f o r D N A s a m p lin g
. See C hapt er490, L aw s ofG en. 135] 143
M a ry lan d 1 9 9 9 (a d d in g m u rd e r, ro b b e ry , ro b b e ryw ith a d e a d ly w eapo n, fi rs tdeg ree assaul t , and cert ai n att em pted cr i m es t o the l i st of qual i fy i ng o ff

en ses ) ; C hapt er240, L aw s of M ary l and 2003 ( r evi s i ng s t atut e t o encomp ass curr entcat egor i es of qual i fy i ng offe ns es : al l fel oni es and vi ol at i ons of C r i m i nal L aw A r t i cl e §6- 205 a n d § 6 -2 0 6 ). In 2 0 0 3 , itw a s re c o d if ied a s p a rt o f

th e n e w P u b lic SafetyA r t i cl e. C hapt er5, §2, L aw s of M ary l and 2003.
D
. S u m m ary
I tt hus appea rs t hatt he Legi s l atur e w as focus ed on gather i ng D N A s ampl es of t he gre at es t i nt er es t t o l aw enfor cementauthor i t i es i n t he mostcos t

- eff

ect i ve manner
. A s a r es ul t , t he sampl i ng pr ogr am t a r g e t e d o f

f e n d e r s a l r e a d yi n c u s t o d ya nd t h o s e wh o wo u l d c o me underSt at e s uper vi s i on i n t he futur e. O t hert han exc ept i ng par ol ees f ro m th e sa m p lin g p ro g ra m f o r f isc a l re a so n s, th e G e n e ra l A ss e m b ly di d notexpl i ci t l yexcl ude fr om t he pr ogr am ot hercat egor i es of i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h q u a l i f

yi n g c o n v i c t i o n s w h o a r e i n S t a t e c u s t o d y. T h e re a re a lso p ra c tica l im p e d im e n ts to a n in ter p re tatio n th a t w o u ld tie th e in m a te ’s c u rr e n t c o n f in e m e n t to th e q u a lif

y in g c o n v ic tio n
. M anyi nm at es ar e i ncar cer at ed for m ul t i pl e off ens es and may be servi ng c o ncu rr ent s entences, part i al l ycon curr ent s entences, cons ecut i ve s ent ence s , ora combi nat i on of concu rre ntand c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e s
. See A nnot at ed C ode of M ary l and, C or r ect i on al Ser vi ces A r t i cl e, §3- 701 ( defi ni ng “t er m of co n fin em en t” fo r pu rpo ses o f law g o v ern ing d im inu ti o n cre d it s). If an i nm at e w ho had bee n convi ct ed of a qual i fy i ng offe ns e coul d be s ampl ed onl y dur i ng t he port i on of hi s orherconfi nement t hatw as at t r i but abl e t o t he qual i fy i ng offe ns e, t hos e cha r ged w i t h carr y i ng ou tt he sam pli ng m and at e w ou l d fac e a l i kelyi nsurm o un t able t ask of unr avel i ng and di s aggr egat i ng var i ous s ent ences, perhaps a s s ig n in g d im in u tio n c re d its to o n e o r a n o th e r. Cf

. Sec retar

y of Pu b l i c Sa

f e t y a n d Cor r e c t i o n a lS e r v i c e s v

. Hut c h i ns on , 359 M d. 3 2 0 , 3 2 1 -2 3 , 7 5 3 A .2 d 1 0 2 4 (2 0 0 0 ) (ref e rrin g to th e “ a rc a n e w o rld of d i m i nu t i on credi t s” and the “i ntr i cat e ser i es of calcu lation s” nece s s aryt o det er m i n e w h en i nm at e has compl et ed s ent ence or becomes el i gi bl e forr el eas e) ; 84 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al 5 0 (1 9 9 9 ) (d e sc rib in g d if f icu ltyo f c o m p u tin g g o o d c o n d u c t cr e d its f o r in m a tes se rv in g m u lti p le s e n ten c e s). N o n e o f th e se a d ju stm e n ts and comput at i ons w oul d change t he t w o m os tcr i t i cal fac t s t hatt he i nm at e had be en pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a qual i fy i ng offe ns e and t hatt he i nm at e w as curr ent l yi n St at e cus t ody

. T he det er m i nat i on of w h ethe ran i nm at e w as el i gi bl e t o be s ampl ed w oul d become a hi ghl ycompl ex ende avor , w i t h l i t t l e r el at i on t o t he p o li cyr eas ons1 4 4 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y
under l y i ng t he s t atut or ym andat e for gather i ng D N A s ampl es fr om in m a te s
. I ti s t her efor e u n s urpr i s i ng t hat , i n R ai nes , nei t hert he part i es nor t he C our t of A ppeal s r ai s ed any ques t i on as t o w h ethe r the i nm at e w as el i gi bl e fors ampl i ng, even though hi s i ncar cer at i on m ay have be en unre l at ed t o hi s qual i fy i ng convi ct i on. I n ourvi ew , i f the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls w e re sq u a re lyp re se n ted w ith th e q u e stio n , it w oul d l i kel yconcl ude tha tPS §2-504( a) does notr equi r e thatan in m a te b e c u rre n tly in c a rc e ra ted f o r a q u a lify in g o f

f e n se in o rd e r to be s ampl ed.

III
C oncl usi on
I n our opi ni on, PS §2- 504( a) does notr equi r e thatan i nm at e be curr ent l ys er vi ng a s ent ence fora qual i fy i ng offe ns e i n or dert o be el i gi bl e forD N A s ampl i ng, s o l ong as t he i nm at e has been c onvi ct ed a t s o m e tim e o f

a q u a lif y in g o f f e n s e
.

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr.

A t t or ney G ener al
S h a ro n B . B e n z il A ss i s t a n t Att o r n e yG eneral
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce