Sanford vetoes DNA measure
McConnell promises override effort
COLUMBIA — Gov. Mark Sanford on Wednesday vetoed a bill that would have expanded the use of genetic information in criminal cases, saying collecting DNA samples when suspected felons are arrested is an invasion of privacy.
"We see this legislation as a reach past that very foundation upon which this country was founded," Sanford told legislators in his veto. He called the bill a "further encroachment on our civil liberties and privacy rights."
The legislation required a DNA sample to be taken when people were arrested for felonies as well as for eavesdropping, peeping or stalking. Those samples could be destroyed if suspects are not convicted.
The governor cited statistics showing that only about 40 percent of people arrested on felony charges are convicted.
His action wasn't surprising given his veto of a similar bill last year. He said Wednesday that government shouldn't have access to genetic information without a conviction, warrant or court order.
Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, said he was disappointed with the veto.
"I was stunned," he said. "We had worked so hard to alleviate some of the concerns he expressed over a year ago."
McConnell led the legislative charge for new crime-fighting measures at the urging of North Charleston Police Chief Jon Zumalt and Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen.
DNA sampling is at the core of those efforts because of the potential for finding cold hits on old crimes and getting repeat offenders off the streets, McConnell said.
"It is the public's civil right to be protected in their person and their property," he said. "This bill was the single biggest thing that we could do in the battle against violent crime."
McConnell said he will call for the veto to be overturned when the Legislature returns in January, or sooner if the lawmakers are called back to Columbia before the end of the year to deal with budget problems.
The veto was a blow to advocates hoping to allow inmates to use DNA testing to prove their innocence. Already, 43 states allow DNA tests to help free the wrongly convicted.
Sanford applauded that portion of the bill. "If this were the only provision of the law, we would have signed this legislation into law."
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 17 comment(s)
Posted by gtrisher on July 3, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is why Governor Sanford will never be selected as a Vice President running mate. He is too easy on criminals. This bill would help Law Enforcement build cases, and solve cases that are cold. Mr. McConnell keep up the good work you are doing in trying to get this bill passed.
Posted by beth1070 on July 3, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I like Governor Sanford but I think he has really dropped the ball on this one.
Posted by RTC on July 3, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now, maybe some McConnell bashers will understand what he has had to contend with.
The man really does care about the citizens of SC, but it is hard to get anything done when people are constantly shooting you down.
Posted by bkeelin on July 3, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So they want to infringe on the civil rights of some for the benefits of others. It is a slippery slope to go down. Next thing you know they will want DNA from birth so that if they ever commit a crime they will have their DNA on hand.
Posted by commonsence on July 3, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It could be said that Sanford is being tough on criminals if the samples were taken from those who are convicted and not just charged. And the article says that the sample COULD be destroyed if not convicted, not WOULD be destroyed. I agree with the Governor on this one. I'm sure there is a way to achieve the goal without such a blanket invasion of the innocent.
Posted by metallic on July 3, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
>>>"It is the public's civil right to be protected in their person and their property," he [McConnell] said. "This bill was the single biggest thing that we could do in the battle against violent crime."<<<
First, the "public" has no right to infringe upon the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of individual citizens -- in spite of all the infringements that do take place because of BAD LAW created by legislators like McConnell.
Second, if McConnell thinks a DNA data base is "the single biggest thing that we could do in the battle against violent crime" he is showing that he is pretty clueless about crime and its causes.
My compliments to Governor Sanford for taking a principled stand and vetoing this bill.
Posted by eyfigueroa on July 3, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Gov Sanford on this one. Convicted? By all means. Arrested? The basis of our criminal legal system is the presumption of innocence until proven/confession of guilty.
There is no way to protect privacy if a person is arrested of a crime and is found completely innocent.
Too many of you out there CLAIM you want your personal liberties protected but have NO problem allowing the govt. usurping others.
I find the hypocrisy of so-called 'conservatives' to be very taxing.
As a Libertarian, I have less respect form ost 'conservatives' than liberals. At least with liberals I know exactly what they are about. These so-called religious conservatives talk one way but live another. As long as they get what they want it's okay, but invariably want to supress the rights of others they deem 'unworthy'.
I say once a defendant has confessed or is convicted, he/she loses certain rights and should have the DNA taken and catalogued.
But to take the DNA with the 'hope' that someone would destroy it if innocence is proven.
uh uh
Posted by jamie29456 on July 3, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Sanford, too. My first thought about automatic collecting of DNA was that it would not be destroyed if charges were dropped, as proposed. We are innocent until proven guilty! If found guilty taking a sample is well founded. Who decides which offenses call for collecting DNA? This bill needs more detail before it passes. How much more privacy must we give up?
Posted by bkeelin on July 3, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"religious conservatives talk one way but live another. As long as they get what they want it's okay, but invariably want to suppress the rights of others they deem unworthy"
Man that is straight out of the liberal handbook, perhaps people need to refamiliarize themselves with who the conservatives really are. I assure you we don't want to suppress the rights of others but we certainly don't want to give special privelages to certain people because they live wreched lifestyles or because of some other socio-economic factor. We want the rules to be the same for everybody. Isn't that fair?
Posted by wjhamilton3 on July 3, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I suspect that DNA samples would only be destroyed when someone pays the $150 fee to have their record cleared by an order of expungement, which people found not guilty have to do. People who are not convicted have to pay to get their records cleared in SC. Even then, it's hard to really know that records have been destroyed. Huge amounts of bad arrests are made in SC. No real evidence is needed to get someone arrested.
All sorts of things happen where there is conflict between people in business, divorces, family conflict and many other situations. It's easy and cheap to get someone arrested. The police feel like they have to do something, so they arrest someone where the evidence is shakey and then let the Prosecutor and Courts Work it out. It gets angry people out of the cop's hair. It's producing huge problems with large numbers of bad cases in the system, eating up time, court capacity and space in the jails.
Posted by eyfigueroa on July 3, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bkeelin: apparently you didn't quite comprehend my post. Your response is so far from what i'm talking about and what this particular article is referencing. Please take some time and re-read my post. Seek the assistance of a thesarus or dictionary if you find you are having difficulty.
I'm no liberal. I'm a Libertarian with very strong conservative leanings.
I speak of 'conservatives' who are only concerned with what they want to do and care not for the rights of others. In fact quite similar to liberals who are only concerned with what they think is right for everyone.
Interesting that both sides continue to fight against each others when their methods and reasonings are so similar.
Bkeelin: how is opposing taking DNA from those not convicted of a crime giving special privileges to anyone? It is not your or the government's business what's going on with my body or my DNA. If I commit and are convicted of a crime then I lose certain personal liberties and rights.
However, until that time, I should be free to withhold intimate information from anyone I feel that does not need it.
If you need any further or simpler explanation please feel free to contact me and I'll see what I can do for you.
Posted by MP on July 3, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Never ceases to amaze me how the chicken-little ultra liberals can make such giant imaginary leaps from common sense to "the sky is falling."
We are talking about people being arrested- not kiddies in a day care center or average every-day people. We are already taking arrestees fingerprints and running them against a national data base. Whats the difference between that and doing the same with a DNA sample? If the sample takes one rapist, child molester, or killer off the streets, so be it. Mark blew it on this one, and I am normally one of his biggest fans.
Posted by bkeelin on July 3, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ey,
I didn't miss understand your comments, but when you lump true conservatives and liberals together you go too far. The Republican party is not what I would call conservative, certainly not my kind of conservative. If you want to use the terms republican and democrat go ahead, but true conservatives don't think like liberals. And my example was not related to the article but your comment.
Be for you start insinuating ignorance please make an attempt at civility. I wasn't saying you were liberal, I was saying your perception of conservatives is the reality of the liberals. Nobody was attacking you, I was merely disagreeing with your opinion of conservatives.
Posted by bkeelin on July 3, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ey,
I agree we shouldn't be taking DNA from someone to put in a database until they are actually convicted of a crime. Look at my earlier post and you will see I agreed with the reasoning behind the veto.
Posted by bkeelin on July 3, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I must laugh at my self and my grammar "Be for" should be "Before", especially when making a comment about ignorance.
Posted by ForPnC on July 4, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Governor Sanford on this one as well.
Posted by scienceguy on July 4, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
whamaiton3 makes some good points. But he does not present the entire picture. Check out http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/search....
If you cannot access the posts, log on to http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/ and search "expungement."