[ Search ] [ Legislation ]
[ Home ] [ Back ] [ Bottom ]
| [ Introduced ] | [ Engrossed ] | [ Enrolled ] |
| [ House Amendment 001 ] |
91_HB4593gms
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
207 STATE CAPITOL, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62706
June 23, 2000
GEORGE H. RYAN
GOVERNOR
To the Honorable Members of the
Illinois House of Representatives
91st General Assembly
Today I have signed House Bill 4593 into law, which is
the first stop in creating a uniform statewide evidence
retention policy after the trial and conviction of a
defendant. In 1998, Illinois was one of the first states to
enact a law allowing a defendant the opportunity to seek a
court order for fingerprint or DNA analysis of evidence after
the defendant's conviction. However, this law is only useful
if evidence capable of further testing has been retained. As
new forensic techniques develop, there is even greater
promise that such analysis will provide the criminal justice
system with enhanced tools for establishing the guilt or
innocence of persons accused of crime. I have a commitment
to do all that I can to improve the truth-seeking ability of
the criminal justice system, and my action today is in
furtherance of that goal.
However, House Bill 4593 is not without problems. The
bill does not apply to all police and law enforcement
agencies, since the definition of "law enforcement" is
limited to municipal police departments and sherriff's
offices. The lengthy evidence retention periods do not have
a reasonable relationship to the period of incarceration or
exhaustion of appeals in a defendant's case, and in many
instances would require retention long after defendants have
completed their sentences. The bill does provide the ability
to seek a court order to dispose of the evidence sooner
pursuant to court order, but the circumstances where the
court can grant such an order are very limited. Equally
troubling, the arbitrary time limits in the bill could even
result in the permissible destruction of evidence prior to
the expiration of a defendant's sentence or the exhaustion of
all avenues of post-conviction review. Moreover, the bill
covers all physical evidence rather than focusing on what I
believe to the the true intent of retaining evidence that is
capable of future testing with respect to fingerprint or
genetic markers as contemplated by our 1998 landmark
legislation providing for post-conviction forensic testing.
Both law enforcement and the defense have also noted that
some of the bill's terms are vague and undefined, making good
faith compliance and enforcement difficult. Finally, the new
criminal offense for intentionally violating the evidence
retention law does not cover all agencies or persons who
handle or retain evidence and is in direct conflict with the
current criminal offenses of official misconduct and
obstruction of justice. In fact, the new offense carries a
lower penalty than official misconduct.
House Bill 4593 passed the House 102-13 and the Senate
56-0. There was not any public opposition to the bill during
the two months that is was under consideration by the General
Assembly. Indeed, police and prosecutors have made clear to
me that they fully support a uniform forensic evidence
retention policy. However, after the bill passed,
practitioners carefully considered the application and
implementation of the new legislation and discovered some of
the concerns that I have expressed above. Police officers,
prosecutors and defense attorneys alike made helpful
suggestions and proposed changes.
I have been urged to address these concerns through an
amendatory veto. However, there were too many issues and
proposed modifications to address through my limited powers
under the amendatory veto process. Nor do I believe it to be
appropriate to circumvent the deliberative process of the
General Assembly. I have urged these parties to continue in
the same spirit of cooperation they have demonstrated with my
office in seeking to improve the criminal justice system and
to continue working together on follow-up legislation. After
our discussions with all of the interested parties, I believe
there is room for compromise on the key issues. I have full
confidence that with House Bill 4593 as a starting point and
with everyone working together, the General Assembly can
produce a model evidence retention law for Illinois and the
nation.
Therefore, I am asking the General Assembly to continue
working on refining the legislation I have signed into law
today to address the issues I have raised.
Sincerely,
s/GEORGE H. RYAN
Governor