Anthony Casper Dias has become the poster boy for expanded DNA testing – for good reason.
On July 31, 2005, Dias hit a State Patrol cruiser and fled the scene. He was arrested and charged with felony hit and run. Dias posted bail and was released to await trial.
A month later, Dias raped a Fircrest woman in her bedroom.
Had authorities collected a DNA sample when Dias was arrested for slamming into a police cruiser, they would have had their man.
Instead, Dias went on to rape seven more women and girls in Tacoma, Federal Way and Des Moines. News of his spree – in which he entered homes and held the residents hostage for hours – left countless others in fear.
Dias was finally caught because he fell asleep after raping two young girls in their home. Only then were authorities able to collect the DNA sample that linked Dias to the past rapes.
Public safety shouldn’t ride on violent criminals getting sloppy.
Last month, federal authorities began collecting DNA samples from suspects arrested on felonies in the hopes of identifying serial criminals sooner. Washington should follow suit.
State Rep. Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way, has sponsored a bill that would require police to collect DNA samples by swabbing suspects’ mouths upon arrest.
Once the suspect is charged, police would check for matches in the DNA information system. The sample would be permanently added to DNA databases only after a defendant was convicted and his right to appeal exhausted. If the person is not charged or is acquitted, law enforcement would have to destroy the DNA sample.
Miloscia initially hoped to go further than the feds by adding all gross misdemeanors to the list of offenses that would prompt DNA collection. He and Rep. Chris Hurst, D-Enumclaw, are now working on an amendment that would shorten the list of crimes to more closely reflect the federal law, as well as stiffen penalties for misusing DNA information.
The pair should also incorporate a proposal from state Sen. Debbie Regala, D-Tacoma, that would prevent violent offenders from ducking inclusion in the DNA database by pleading to a lesser charge.
Those changes might not be enough to satisfy criminal defense attorneys or American Civil Liberties Union leaders who argue that expanding DNA collection violates privacy rights and the presumption of innocence.
The proper venue for those concerns is court. Fifteen states already have similar legislation on the books, and more are considering it. The state Supreme Court would have to decide whether Washington’s more robust privacy protections preclude it from using a crime-fighting tool legal elsewhere.
It’s worth noting that in the other states that collect DNA evidence more extensively, the samples have helped exonerate suspects as well as implicate them. Either way, lives are saved.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.