Side stepping the Statute of Limitations > General Discussion

Posted: 5/19/2008 7:39:35 PM EDT

What do you guys think of this:
Story

Thurston County prosecuting attorneys deserve credit for going to extreme measures to hold a rapist accountable for his crime.

Prosecutors have filed rape charges against an unknown suspect, using the man’s DNA profile in lieu of his name.

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jim Powers said that across the country prosecutors have been obtaining “John Doe” warrants since the 1990s. But this is the first time he can remember such a case filed in Thurston County.

Good for prosecutors.

Good for police for dogging this case.

And good for emerging DNA technology that allows this kind of extraordinary prosecution.

Don’t ever believe that law enforcement officers aren’t affected by the crimes they investigate. Olympia police were clearly touched by the rape of a woman in downtown Olympia in the summer of 1999. They have not been able to let it go.

The rape occurred while the woman was walking home alone after an argument with a boyfriend at a west Olympia bar early June 20, 1999. She was downtown on Fourth Avenue when she was approached by a man who accosted her, then dragged her behind a building and raped her, according to court papers.

Olympia Police Detective Russ Geis said, “It was brutal, and it’s always bothered us. She deserves justice.”

But the 10-year statute of limitations expires next year. That would prevent police and prosecutors from filing charges even if they were able to arrest a suspect at a later date.

The solution was to issue the John Doe warrant using the DNA profile as a substitute for a name. Deputy Prosecutor John Skinder says DNA is a better identifier for an individual than a name or fingerprint.

“(T)he probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual with a DNA profile matching the profile set out above is approximately 1 in 4,950,000,000,000,000 (1 in 4.9 quadrillion),” read court records charging a “John Doe’s” genetic profile with the crime.

With the John Doe warrant charging the DNA profile with first-degree rape, prosecutors have preserved their options and avoided the loss of the case under the statute of limitations.

Now, if police and prosecutors are able to match the DNA to a specific individual — through a subsequent arrest, for example — the rape case can be prosecuted.

This is an example of all criminal justice partners working together. In addition to police and prosecutors, court records credit advances at the State Patrol crime lab over the years and the technicians’ ability to get a DNA profile from the semen on the victim’s skirt.

If and when a suspect is finally named, clever defense attorneys likely will try to press the legality of the John Doe warrant and accompanying DNA profile. Prosecutors believe they can make a strong case because there is nothing in Washington’s statutes that prevents prosecutors from charging a DNA profile. State law says that an arrest warrant “shall specify the name of the defendant, or if the defendant is unknown, any name or description by which the defendant can be identified with reasonable certainty,” according to court papers.

Good. And good for county prosecutors who have used all the tools available to them — in a creative fashion — to hold a rapist accountable, and give a rape victim the justice she deserves.

Posted: 5/19/2008 7:42:22 PM EDT

[#1]

Hmm. Now that is interesting.

Posted: 5/19/2008 7:43:54 PM EDT

[#2]

I don't see a problem?

Posted: 5/19/2008 7:48:42 PM EDT

[#3]

ive heard of police doing that before, no specific cases come to mind though. great idea, the low-life scumbag will have to run from the law for the rest of his life or until he gets caught

Posted: 5/19/2008 7:51:58 PM EDT

[#4]

Many places have passed laws that if you are identified by DNA the statute of limitations doesn't apply.

Posted: 5/19/2008 7:54:50 PM EDT

[#5]

Just make sure the DNA evidence don't deteriorate over time.

Posted: 5/19/2008 7:56:52 PM EDT

[#6]

As a private citizen you can name Jon Does in you lawsuits too. The SOL is often tolled for as long as the complaint is active.

Posted: 5/19/2008 7:59:59 PM EDT

[#7]

In general, with sufficient scientific proof, I don't think there should be a SoL on rape.

I don't think eye witness 40 years later should be sufficient, though.

Posted: 5/19/2008 8:04:32 PM EDT

[#8]

Olympia police were clearly touched by the rape of a woman in downtown Olympia in the summer of 1999.

Uhhhh, might want to word that better next time.

Posted: 5/19/2008 8:05:44 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Just make sure the DNA evidence don't deteriorate over time.

Deteriorate and morph into someone else's DNA?

Posted: 5/19/2008 8:17:23 PM EDT

[#10]

Why even have a statute of limitations if the police are allowed to get creative to sidestep it. This is just another example of beaurocracy getting creative to avoid following the law.

John Does on a subpoena were allowed so that during the course of discovery leading to trial others parties that were initially unknown could be named. Using John Doe warrants for cases that are technically inactive and have no meaningful chance of proceeding unless the police get a lucky break strike me as just another smoke and mirror trick to avoid having to follow the law.

No one wants justice to be denied and rapists etc especially deserve to be held up to the scrutiny of law. However to bend, twist and distort the law in an effort to avoid having to follow it merely lays the groundwork for further abuse of citizens at the hands of law enforcement.

If LEO truly feel that the statute of limitations is inappropriate for rape or too short a time frame they have the same recourse for addressing this issue that citizens do.
Petition the legislature to change the law to lengthen the time or eliminate it. End runs around the law merely serve to prove the position that LEO feel they can ignore or interpret the law as they see fit for their own reasons and to hell with the people that
they ostensibly work for.

Posted: 5/19/2008 8:21:51 PM EDT

[#11]

On the surface it may seem like a good idea, but it's never prudent to allow the government the opportunity to skirt the law. If it's a good idea, make the government change the law.

Posted: 5/19/2008 8:27:52 PM EDT

[#12]

State law says that an arrest warrant “shall specify the name of the defendant, or if the defendant is unknown, any name or description by which the defendant can be identified with reasonable certainty,”

That doesn't sound like "creative sidestepping". That sounds like following state law.

Posted: 5/19/2008 8:28:40 PM EDT

[#13]

I have done it on a robbery/kidnapping case. Another on an attempted murder case.

The first one I did it on was a residential burglary series where a homeowner wounded the suspect.

You file a case against a person... the case is in the system. The person is charged. They are more than welcome to come forward

Posted: 5/19/2008 8:33:50 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
On the surface it may seem like a good idea, but it's never prudent to allow the government the opportunity to skirt the law. If it's a good idea, make the government change the law.

They aren't skirting the law. They have genetic proof of who committed the crime, just not the name/age/race/etc. of who the DNA belongs to.

Posted: 5/19/2008 9:09:45 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Just make sure the DNA evidence don't deteriorate over time.

Deteriorate and morph into someone else's DNA?

No, not morph into someone else.. I was envisioning more on the lines of Deteriorate and be mis-analyzed by overworked lab tech into someone else, or defense saying that because DNA is bad, evidence can not be used.

Warning

Confirm Action

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Side stepping the Statute of Limitations

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Side stepping the Statute of Limitations