The DNA, Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime, and Innocence Protection Act, known as Proposition 69, was passed on November 2, 2004 (BFS, 2004). The Act is a controversial law that intrudes on individuals civil liberties (ACLU, 2004). Proposition 69 expands the criminal DNA databases and is unconstitutional (ACLU, 2004).

Proposition 69 dangerously expands criminal databases, threatening social justices and civil liberties, while offering few benefits in ensuring safety to citizens (Simoncelli & Steinhardt, 2006). According to Maya Harris (ACLU, 2004, par. 5), the ACLU attorney and director of the Racial Justice Project, Law enforcement should not be allowed to seize that personal and private information when you havent even been charged with a crime. The state of California approved the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime, and Innocence Protection Act, on November 2, 2004.

Persons opposing Proposition 69 state the adversarial justice the Act displays through collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony crime and before proven guilty is unconstitutional. The Act goes against the American Constitution that allows citizens to be innocent before proven guilty (ACLU, 2004).

To illustrate, a victim of identity theft for 12 years, Rodney Ware, was arrested for a felony crime some other person committed under his name. At present, Mr. Wares DNA is part of the criminal database, despite being proven not guilty (ACLU, 2004). Thousands of innocent people are arrested each year, yet are never convicted of a crime (ACLU, 2004). Charges are dropped, dismissed, or acquitted at trial, yet through Proposition 69, their DNA samples are in the criminal databases in the state of California (ACLU, 2004).

The ACLU wants the federal court to protect citizens fundamental rights, to be secure from unconstitutional police searches, and to privacy in genetic, medical, and personal information (ACLU, 2004). The ACLU filed a class action lawsuit through the United States District Court in San Francisco to the State of California, against Proposition 69. The lawsuit claims Proposition 69 is unconstitutional (ACLU, 2004).

Proposition 69 does allow clients to petition the courts in demanding the release of his or her DNA sample from criminal state databases, when proven innocent. The process is not only time-consuming, however extremely difficult. First, the client must find a judge whom is willing to accept the case. Second, if the prosecuting attorney denies the clients request, the client loses all rights of appeal. Finally, once clients rights to appeal are lost, the client cannot re-open his or her case (ACLU, 2004).

Victims of police misconduct, identity theft, political protestors, or lawful medical marijuana users are some examples of innocent individuals who have been added to the criminal database (ACLU, 2004). Prior to Proposition 69, the state of California law mandated any individual convicted of a violent or serious felony charge, would have to give DNA samples for a statewide database. Thereafter, Proposition 69 was enacted implementing the law where any individual arrested and not yet convicted would become part of the criminal database (ACLU, 2004).

Moreover, under Proposition 69, victims of domestic violence who have committed a felony in self-defense and whose cases were acquitted or dropped are part of the DNA database. In addition, felony drug offense charges of individuals who have successfully completed treatment and under Proposition 36 would have all charges acquitted or dropped, are in the DNA database (ACLU, 2004).

After Proposition 69 was enacted, any individual arrested and not yet convicted would become part of the criminal database (ACLU, 2004).