Dunn County CJCC hears DOJ briefing on missed DNA samples, votes to form collection subcommittee

Judge Christina Meyer, chair of the Dunn County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, opened the meeting and introduced Stephanie Hilton of the Wisconsin Department of Justice, who briefed the council on a multi-county effort to identify and collect DNA samples that courts or convictions required but that have not yet been submitted to the state crime lab.

Hilton said the project aims to ‘‘identify who has not provided a DNA, but is required by law to do so, and then to figure out a plan to collect these samples.’’ She told the council the Department of Justice (DOJ) compiles quarterly updates from the crime lab to flag criminal-history records where a collection is missing and that the project combines multiple imperfect data sources to produce lists local agencies can use.

The presentation put Dunn County’s tally at 235 people identified as owing a DNA sample (current as of the December report Hilton cited). Hilton outlined statewide results from the DOJ project: an initial caseload of roughly 13,500 people rose to about 15,000 after additional convictions were added; by one reporting point DOJ-related efforts had led to more than 3,500 samples collected that produced roughly 50 investigative leads. Hilton also said the crime lab’s estimate is that about 2 to 3 percent of collected samples generate a CODIS hit or other investigative lead.

Hilton reviewed how data flows and gaps contribute to missed collections: CCAP records often require a related arrest event in criminal-history files to carry DNA flags, local booking practices vary, and samples can fail processing if fingerprints or entry information are incorrect. She described local strategies other counties have used, including DOJ letters to people on the list, on-site courtroom collection immediately after conviction, placing kits at every police station, civil petitions and bench warrants when voluntary compliance fails, and coordinated task forces to track collections and reduce backlogs.

Monroe County’s approach was cited as an example: local leaders convened a multidisciplinary team, created a local tracking system, placed DNA kits in courtrooms and stations, used bench warrants when warning letters failed, and filed civil petitions; of 101 civil petitions served in that example, Hilton said ‘‘over 80% of the people have already provided their sample.’’

Following the presentation, the CJCC moved from briefing to action. The council voted to form a subcommittee to map Dunn County’s DNA-collection processes, including how the county obtains and uses DOJ and crime-lab lists, training and booking practices, and local tracking mechanisms. The council also authorized the subcommittee to examine whether warrant fees tied to arrests or pickup of individuals with bench warrants are being charged and collected; members noted an existing $50 (disputed as $55 in discussion) warrant fee that staff believe is under-ordered.

Council members asked for DOJ’s fuller dataset (the DOJ list includes recent addresses and offense details; the crime-lab data bank exports only SID numbers by default) and Hilton offered to provide paper copies and to remain a resource as the county develops local processes. Hilton also noted the federal Assault Kit Initiative (SACI) grants that partly funded the DOJ project will expire in September and encouraged local agencies to plan for sustaining the work after grant funds end.

The CJCC framed the decision as process-focused: members said the council’s multidisciplinary membership (sheriff, district attorney, judges, clerk of courts, public defender, and others) positions it to address the booking and tracking practices that contribute to missed collections rather than to assign blame.

The meeting concluded with council members agreeing to staff and convene the subcommittee and to request the DOJ list and any local data needed for an initial mapping exercise.