We granted Kenny Quarterman’s application for interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of OCGA § 24-4-60, which requires any person convicted of a felony and incarcerated in a State correctional facility to provide a sample for DNA analysis to determine the identification characteristics specific to the person. Id. at b. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. In 2005, while Quarterman was incarcerated in the State prison system for a felony drug conviction, a DNA sample was collected from him pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-60 b. The profile resulting from the DNA analysis was filed in the DNA database1 maintained by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The State matched Quarterman’s DNA to DNA gathered from an underage female who had reported a sexual assault in June 2002.2 After a fresh sample of Quarterman’s DNA was obtained by search warrant and typed, the report reflected that the DNA gathered from the 2002 victim originated from either Quarterman or his identical twin. The State then indicted Quarterman on charges of rape and statutory rape, which gave rise to his motions to suppress evidence and quash the indictment based on constitutional challenges to OCGA § 24-4-60.
1. Quarterman contends OCGA § 24-4-60 denies him equal protection of the law because it requires DNA samples to be taken only from persons convicted of felonies who are incarcerated in State correctional facilities,3 thereby treating such persons differently than persons convicted of misdemeanors who are incarcerated in State correctional facilities for misdemeanors and persons who, although convicted of felonies, either serve their entire sentence incarcerated in county correctional facilities or who receive probated or suspended sentences. Assuming, arguendo, that Quarterman is similarly situated to persons accorded the different treatment,4 “an equal protection challenge is assessed under the ‘rational relationship’ test when as here neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right is affected by the challenged statute. Cit.” Love v. State , 271 Ga. 398, 400 2 517 SE2d 53 1999. Under that test, the legislative classification created by OCGA § 24-4-60 can withstand constitutional assault when the classification is rationally related to a legitimate State interest. See Glenn v. State , 282 Ga. 27 1 644 SE2d 826 2007. We recognize, as has the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, that because convicted felons are more likely to violate the law than ordinary citizens, our Legislature has a legitimate interest in creating for law enforcement purposes a permanent identification record of convicted felons. See Padgett v. Donald , 401 F3d 1273, 1279-1280 II A 11th Cir. 2005. In light of this recognized tendency by convicted felons to commit violent crimes, we reject Quarterman’s argument that the Legislature acted without a rational reason when it chose to include for DNA profiling all convicted felons and not just those convicted of felonies involving sexual offenses. We further conclude that the Legislature’s decision to subject convicted felons but not convicted misdemeanants to the DNA identification process was rationally related to this legitimate interest based on the difference between the types and seriousness of the offenses as well as the severity of punishment involved. Compare OCGA § 16-1-3 5 felony offense one punishable by imprisonment for “more than 12 months” with OCGA § 17-10-3 a 1 maximum punishment for misdemeanor is “term not to exceed 12 months”. As to the distinctions drawn by OCGA § 24-4-60 between convicted felons who are incarcerated in correctional facilities overseen by the Department of Corrections and those who are not so situated, “the drawing of lines that create distinction is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one. Perfection in making the necessary classifications is neither possible nor necessary.” Punctuation and citations omitted. Browning v. State , 254 Ga. 478, 480 330 SE2d 879 1985. We find the classification is rationally related to the Legislature’s legitimate law enforcement purpose of creating a permanent identification record of convicted felons because it encompasses all convicted felons whose crimes and/or past histories were serious enough to warrant a sentence to confinement, as opposed to lesser punishment such as a suspended or probated sentence, and that the Legislature acted reasonably and not arbitrarily when it focused on those convicted felons who are housed in a correctional facility where DNA samples can be efficiently and economically obtained. See Farley v. State , 272 Ga. 432, 434 531 SE2d 100 2000 legislature may address problem ” ‘one step at a time’ or even ‘select one phase of one field and apply a remedy there, neglecting the others’ “ . We therefore conclude that OCGA § 24-4-60 rationally relates to the legitimate State interest it is intended to promote and does not violate equal protection. See generally Cross v. State , 272 Ga. 282 528 SE2d 241 2000 classifications in Code sections need not be drawn with mathematical nicety.
