California’s Proposition 69: A Dangerous Precedent for Criminal DNA Databases,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 33, no. 2 (2005): 279-293, at 286-288. Reprinted in

Act ” by a margin of approximately 60 to 40 percent.1 Given the limited amount of information provided to voters during the initiative process, it is unclear how many of the yea-sayers were apprised of the full im-plications of this measure. Indeed, by voting “yes ” on Proposition 69, California has elected to house the most radical and costly state criminal DNA database in the country. This dangerous expansion of Califor-nia’s database poses tremendous threats to civil liber-ties and social justice while offering little, if anything, by way of increasing the safety of its citizens. Prior to November 2, California law required the permanent retention of DNA samples from felons convicted of serious, violent crimes. The new law expands the database to include DNA samples from all felons and individuals with past felony convictions – including juveniles – and, beginning in five years, all adults arrested for any felony offense. The inclusion of DNA samples from people who have merely been arrested is particularly egregious and establishes a highly dangerous precedent. California’s DNA database is only one of many forensic DNA databases in the U.S. and abroad that Tania Simoncelli works as a Science and Technology Fellow for the ACLU. Her primary work involves researching and ana-lyzing the civil liberties implications of new and emerging ge-netic technologies. Barry Steinhardt is Director of the ACLU's Technology & Liberty Program. He is a prominent advocate of privacy and free speech in the face of emerging technologies, in-cluding surveillance infrastructure, the internet, and DNA databases