Backlog on DNA at lab solved: bureaucracy

MAYBE it was the influence of the wildly popular "CSI" TV series or the docudramas focusing on real life crime-solving through forensics - particularly the closing of older cold cases through the modern DNA technology. Or perhaps it was just the hope of finding an unknown killer that had shattered a Newport Beach family.

Whatever the reason, California voters were only too happy to go for the quick solution, the idea that the key to thousands of unsolved crimes was to extract DNA samples from just about every felon in the state.

Not a bad idea, we said, of 2004's Proposition69, bankrolled by Newport Beach developer Bruce Harrington, desperate for an answer to who killed his brother and sister-in-law in 1980.

The database has been instrumental in solving some cases and likely will continue to be one of law enforcement's best tools.

However, we warned the measure cast too wide a net and would more than likely collapse of its own weight of evidence collection and processing.

We're not happy to report that it didn't take a psychic detective to unravel the case of the 287,294 samples of unprocessed DNA stacking up at the state crime lab.

As reported last week in the Los Angeles Times, lack of personnel is the main

reason for the backlog. That obvious fact is laid at the feet of too little funding, again probably a given.

The measure came with built-in funding, so what went wrong?

Times' sleuths unearthed the reason: Not all counties seem to be following state law in delivering a portion of misdemeanor fines they collect to finance the work.

Clues as to why counties aren't forwarding the money to the "penalty pot" haven't been forthcoming.

We can ferret out motive:

Counties don't want to share the income from such fines. Simple.

How to fix it? Maybe the state's top cop, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, can come up with an arresting proposal on how to get the goods.

Until then, it seems best to delay implementation of the second part of the measure, scheduled to begin in 2009. That involves collecting DNA from every person arrested on a felony, not just those convicted.

That or commit to classifying DNA collection and processing as part of state law enforcement. and pay for it through the state's general fund.

After all, DNA matching works and works well, first time, every time. How many other state programs can make that same claim?