Item 3: Ratification of IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

built in an emergency warehouse. Estimated cost: $2 million for a plain warehouse design built on city owned land (not including space-saver shelving, which would be required at an additional cost) plus monthly operating costs including security, HVAC, phone, etc. In addition to the potentially large expense required for storage of this evidence for the extremely long periods of time specified by the bill, there are some other concerns: Section 1(3) requires that "an inventory of biological evidence that has been preserved under this section" be provided "upon written request by the defendant." First, this language doesn't limit the response to the evidence relevant to the defendant, so it could be interpreted to require that a complete inventory of all evidence be provided. Even if this were interpreted in the way it is obviously intended (i.e., an inventory of evidence relevant to the defendant's own case), there is no limit on how often such a request could be made. Conceivably, a defendant could send such a request each month as a harassment tactic, and we would be required to provide a response. (We currently have one person in prison for rape who is on a regular basis trying to contact the detective involved in his case. If this bill became law, he would almost certainly be sending such requests with the same regularity.) Section 1(4)(b) requires notice by certified mail to several persons if evidence is to be destroyed. The cost of doing this is not inconsequential. As of today, the cost for us to send one certified letter is $5.32. For just one defendant, the minimum cost to notify the defendant, his lawyer, the DA, the Executive Director Office of Public Defense Services and the Attorney General would be $26.60 per case. This would also increase employee hours in the property room and mail room just in filling out paperwork. Although Section 1(5) creates an exception for items for which retention is "impracticable" due to the "size, bulk, or physical character" of the item, it does not account for the sheer volume of items which, individually, are not a problem, but collectively require a lot of storage space. As an example, our Forensic Evidence Unit routinely swabs potential evidence such as beer bottles, pop cans, etc. and the swabs become the potential DNA evidence so we can dispose of the original container to save space. (This is similar to taking a small cutting of a bed spread so the original can go back to an owner or be disposed so law enforcement doesn't have to keep 3 cu. Ft. of evidence.) Language in the bill could require keeping the original articles, unless we went through the procedural steps in the bill to allow destruction, creating another significant additional workload. We have no problem with Section 2 of the bill which would appoint a Task Force to deal with DNA retention issues. In fact, we believe that such a task force might be able to arrive at a solution which creates a practical balance between the desire to retain DNA evidence and the need to be realistic in terms of what agencies can reasonably be expected to do in the current climate of inadequate---and diminishing---resources. We would recommend that, if the bill is to move forward, Section 1 of the bill be eliminated. SB 0316 Relating Clause: Relating to clinical trials. Title: Requires health benefit plan to provide coverage of routine costs of care in qualifying clinical trials subject to copayment and other cost sharing requirements. Limits liability of insurers for adverse effects of clinical trial. Sponsored by: Senator DEVLIN URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/sb0300.dir/sb0316.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Myrnie Daut Myrnie Daut CS-HRRS 1/28/2009 Pri 3 No No Monitor Comments: Interesting idea. Not currently covered under the City's plans. 16