In January 2008, Santana Aceves, the so-called “Chandler rapist,” was arrested after he was linked by DNA to half a dozen sexual assaults of young girls in the Chandler area in 2006 and 2007. Aceves targeted young daughters of single mothers, stalking them and learning their families’ schedules and then attacking the girls in their homes when their mothers were at work. Aceves was in the United States illegally and had been deported on drug charges as recently as 2003. Had his DNA been collected and analyzed in 2003, police could have identified him after the first rape in 2006, potentially preventing at least three or four subsequent sexual assaults.
Anthony Dias was arrested in Washington state for reckless driving and felony hit-and-run in July 2005. He later posted bond and was released from jail pending trial. One month later, Dias broke into the home of a 19-year-old woman and raped her in her bedroom. Had Dias’s DNA been collected and analyzed upon his prior arrest, he could have been identified as the perpetrator of this assault. Instead, Dias went on to rape eight other women, including two girls – one as young as 13 in front of her mother – in a rampage of home invasions and kidnappings before he was finally caught by authorities in November of that year.
These horrendous acts highlight the need to develop tools to identify criminals so law enforcement can prevent them from committing more crimes. We already use mug shots and fingerprints; I believe it’s important to begin using DNA, too.
That’s why I authored a portion of a 2005 law that gave the Justice Department the authority to develop regulations for collecting DNA samples from federal arrestees and immigration detainees, and uploading these samples into a national database known as the National DNA Index System, where samples can be compared with crime-scene evidence. I am pleased to report that the Justice Department recently issued and finalized these regulations.
According to U.S. officials, once the regulations are fully implemented, it’s estimated that about 1.2 million new DNA samples could be added to the national database each year. It is my hope that this database will serve as an expanded crime-solving tool for law enforcement, in the same way as a mug shot or a fingerprint (which is also taken at the time of an arrest) does.
Some critics argue that the new regulations may adversely affect individual privacy because DNA analysis can extract medically-sensitive information. While most crime labs do not even have the equipment to extract medically-sensitive information, critics ignore that only a numerical profile – which does not reveal any medically-sensitive information – is uploaded to the national database; and only a handful of lab employees have access to information that connects those profiles to the names of individuals. And for those few who do have access to this information, it would be a federal offense for any lab employee to misuse a DNA sample.
In addition, the regulations offer an additional layer of privacy protections. Those who are ultimately not convicted of a crime may “opt out” and have their DNA analysis removed from the database. This additional protection is unique to DNA. No such opt-out exists for arrestee fingerprints and mug shots.
I doubt that any Americans who, if they had the chance, would fail to do anything that they could to spare the young victims of the Chandler rapist and Anthony Dias from having to live through what they endured. These men’s crimes are unspeakable, and will haunt their victims for years to come.
Today, because of DNA technology, we have the opportunity to prevent crimes like these. By taking DNA at arrest, we can identify and catch a serial rapist after his first assault, rather than after the sixth or seventh. With the new DNA regulations, the U.S. Justice Department is doing its part to protect our communities and families from these types of predators, and to prevent many horrible crimes from being committed.
