The state's troubling fiscal environment will prevent several worthwhile initiatives from taking flight. One of them is a proposal requiring Colorado prosecutors to collect DNA from more criminal suspects. In normal times we'd support it, but not this year.

Two years ago, the state mandated DNA samples from everyone convicted of a felony who was in custody or on parole. But law enforcement officials believe (with good cause) that they could solve a lot more open cases if they had DNA samples from felony suspects at the time of arrest.

Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey floated the idea during last year's legislative session, but it went nowhere. It was also a top priority of Secretary of State Bernie Buescher before he lost his re-election bid for the state House last year. Given the budget constraints this year's General Assembly faces, the proposal could be a tough sell once again.

That's too bad, because if there were some way to find the estimated $5 million to $8 million needed to collect and store DNA profiles, the plan might nearly pay for itself over time by cornering more repeat offenders. Their crimes are often difficult to solve when police lack this signature means of identification.

Under the plan, anyone arrested on a felony charge would be required to submit a DNA sample that could be checked against evidence from other unsolved crimes. Any matches that were found could lead to convictions that might otherwise never be possible.

In those instances where the charges are dropped, or the suspect is found not guilty at trial, the DNA samples would be destroyed.

Given the considerable amount of information that's already collected on suspects at booking - including fingerprints, mug shots, descriptions of tattoos - collecting a DNA sample should be a no-brainer.

Even so, civil-liberties groups see this measure as an unwarranted invasion of privacy. They also view it as an invitation to abuse - for instance, if DNA samples were used to track genetic disorders or gather other medical data from suspects.

We're not persuaded. The legislation requires the government to use DNA profiles only for law enforcement purposes - and to destroy the samples if the suspect is not convicted, as is now the case with fingerprint records. So long as police follow the law, the risk of abuse is minimal.

Almost any measure that can help solve crimes more efficiently without infringing on the rights of the accused should be encouraged. And roughly a dozen states have given police this useful tool.

In a healthier fiscal climate, the legislature would be negligent if it failed to give law enforcement officers this essential means of protecting the public.

But state lawmakers should not impose an unfunded mandate on local police to collect and store this information. Until the state's budget crunch eases, we're reluctantly unable to endorse the added spending this project would require.