OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - A bill that would expand Washington law to require that a DNA sample be collected from anyone arrested in a felony or gross misdemeanor investigation was criticized Tuesday on constitutional and cost grounds but praised by a murder victim's mother.

Jayann Sepich, a Carlsbad, N.M. resident, testified in favor of "Katie's law" at a hearing before the House Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Committee.

Since the rape and murder of her daughter Katie in 2003, Sepich has lobbied legislatures across the U.S. in favor of DNA sampling laws.

Under current law, Washington collects DNA samples from those convicted of any felony, or a gross misdemeanor that is sexual in nature. Under the bill proposed by Rep. Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way, anyone arrested for investigation of a gross misdemeanor or felony would be forced to submit a sample, which would be stored at the state crime lab. If no charges were filed, or the person were found not guilty, the sample would be destroyed.

"We've all seen the TV shows, we've all seen the newspaper headlines. DNA helps us protect the innocent and catch the bad guys," Miloscia said.

Critics say the proposed expansion is a mandate to conduct unwarranted searches and would propel those arrested for relatively benign crimes, like driving with a suspended license, into an elevated category with violent convicts.

"I don't believe it would survive the constitutional scrutiny," said Mark Prothero, a lawyer who testified for the Washington Criminal Defense League. "This bill takes a quantum leap beyond convictions ... to innocent persons accused and arrested."

To Sepich, there's no difference between a fingerprint and DNA.

The killer of Sepich's daughter, a Mexican national named Gabriel Avila, was convicted of murder, kidnapping and related charges with the aid of DNA evidence. Avila currently is serving a 69-year sentence.

"You know I personally believe that if somebody is arrested they should submit DNA," Sepich said after testifying. "Opponents of this legislation will say it is too expensive. Yes, it does have costs, but what are the costs of not taking DNA upon arrest?"

In this case, the cost of expanding the state's DNA collection would be paid for by increasing traffic ticket fines by 5 percent. Any person convicted of a crime in state Superior Court would see a 10 percent fine increase.

Committee Chairman Chris Hurst said while he likes the bill and wants to pass it out of his committee, the timing might not be right.

"If it was any other year I personally believe we" would pass the bill, Hurst said. But "quite frankly, we have some fiscal considerations and anything we do today will be taking money away from something else." The state faces a $6 billion budget deficit over the next 2½ years.

Hurst also acknowledged the bill would likely face court challenge.

Proponents said the bill would give law enforcers a precision tool that would not only close cases, but exonerate the falsely accused.

"The most important thing to me was that we found the person that killed our daughter," Sepich said. "I can't tell you how many times there were persons of interest that they were just sure had done it and DNA ruled them out."

She said exonerating the innocent was as important to her as catching her daughter's killer.

Shankar Narayan, legislative director of the ACLU of Washington, said he was worried that once DNA samples were collected it would be hard to ensure they would be destroyed in the event of exoneration.

"There's a concern that if you add a lot of people to a DNA database that there would be a slowing down of the DNA processing," Narayan said. "Even if you're never convicted, the information can remain in the database."

----

The measure is HB1382.