DNA use at issue in murder case

A DNA match led police to arrest Michael Hutchinson this spring in the murder of Crystal Perry, 12 years after she was stabbed to death in her home in Bridgton.

Now, his lawyer wants that genetic link thrown out before the case goes to trial.

Hutchinson was subjected to a "warrantless search" when he was forced to give a DNA sample following a conviction in 2002 for criminal threatening, said attorney Robert Andrews.

Just as the Constitution prohibits police from kicking in doors and searching houses at random, it should keep police from collecting biological evidence from people because some may be guilty of other crimes, Andrews said.

In almost every case, courts have disagreed, ruling that collecting DNA is a small intrusion on an individual that is outweighed by an overwhelming public safety interest in solving past crimes.

But there have been nagging concerns from civil libertarians who argue that, in addition to fighting crime, DNA databases have the potential to invade people's privacy.

Assistant Attorney General Lisa Marchese, who is prosecuting Hutchinson, said there is a big difference between collecting DNA from a convicted felon and searching a house.

"When I go into a building and press the button on the elevator, I leave my DNA there," she said. "Your DNA is not like your home, you don't have the same expectation of privacy."

Andrews' motion to suppress the DNA evidence is one of several in the Hutchinson case that will be heard before his trial, which is scheduled for March.

According to the FBI, the national database it manages, called CODIS, has made more than 30,000 "cold hits" since 1994, linking individuals to unknown DNA samples collected at crime scenes.

Andrews said a federal court ruling in Massachusetts that is under review by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals calls the concept of a DNA database into question.

If a state court judge came to the same conclusion, Andrews said, Hutchinson would be free.

Marchese said that would be unlikely. Collecting DNA is not a constitutional violation, no more than the collection of fingerprints from every person who is arrested, she said.

Courts have not required suspicion of a specific crime to justify the collection of DNA.

"It's enough to say that they are convicted felons and they may have committed other crimes," she said.

Crystal Perry was sexually assaulted and stabbed to death on May 12, 1994, while her 12-year-old daughter slept in the next room.

For years, police investigated the case and worked leads, asking suspects to submit DNA samples, but they were all dead ends.

That changed in March, when the FBI announced that it had found a match from a DNA sample collected in 2002.

Hutchinson is from Bridgton and lived a few miles from Perry at the time of her death.

But he was never a suspect in the case, and Perry's family said after his arrest that they did not remember ever hearing his name.

At the time of Hutchinson's 2002 conviction, DNA was collected from everyone who was convicted of a violent felony in Maine. Since then, the law has been changed to include every felony.

Other states have a much lower standard. According to a study by The Washington Post, 38 states collect DNA from everyone convicted of a misdemeanor, and five states collect DNA from everyone arrested for any crime.

Andrews said that eventually, everyone could end up in the database. "There are concerns about privacy," he said. "That's a little more intrusive than I want my government to be."