State labs, local crime labs and advocates outline path for limited rapid‑DNA use, raise privacy and validation concerns

The House Community Safety Committee paused a second time on April 1 to review the use of rapid‑DNA technology in Washington: local crime labs described current, limited uses; the Washington State Patrol outlined steps and costs needed to validate instruments for broader database searches; and both scientific and privacy concerns were raised by witnesses.

The most immediate point: rapid‑DNA instruments can produce a usable DNA profile much faster than conventional lab workflows, but they are presently suitable only for selective, high‑quality, single‑source samples and federal rules and state policy limit how the results may be used. "The rapid DNA instrument is a fully automated instrument, [it] can generate a DNA profile in approximately 90 minutes," said Catherine Rising, DNA contractor for the Yakima Valley Local Crime Lab, who described her lab's current practices and a statewide working group.

How labs are using it now: Rising said Yakima and Spokane deploy rapid‑DNA for sample‑to‑sample comparisons within an investigation, triage to reduce the number of samples sent to the Washington State Patrol (WSP), victim identification in mass‑fatality events and some criminal paternity matters. Because the FBI until recently has required confirmatory testing by an accredited lab before entry into CODIS, local rapid results have been used primarily to generate fast investigative leads rather than as final evidence.

WSP's timeline and costs: Christina Hoffman, DNA operations manager at the Washington State Patrol, said WSP purchased one ANDI instrument and two Thermo Fisher RapidHit ID systems after a 2021 proviso; the patrol has paused full validation pending vendor upgrades and updated FBI guidance. Hoffman said instrument upgrades and consumables for the Thermo Fisher units are nearly $68,000 and that WSP will need to run validation experiments, expand accreditation and decide where to site trained analysts before broader deployment.

FBI guidance and policy choices: witnesses noted that the FBI issued updated considerations for CODIS labs and that new FBI policy (discussed in testimony as effective July 1) would allow rapid‑DNA profiles to be uploaded into CODIS if laboratories and partner agencies meet FBI standards, including review by accredited labs. Catherine Rising proposed a "read‑only mirror" of the state database under WSP oversight to allow local rapid searches without risking CODIS integrity; Christina Hoffman said any entries would require scientist review and laboratory validation before databases accept rapid results.

Limitations and privacy concerns: WSP and local labs emphasized that rapid‑DNA is less sensitive than conventional methods and that it is best suited to single‑source, high‑quality samples such as bloodstains or reference samples. Committee members and some advocates raised concerns about personally identifiable genetic information, the need for strict oversight of any local databases, and protections for victims and third parties.

Next steps: WSP said it will continue vendor upgrades, internal validation work and planning for accreditation changes; Yakima's lab said it will contribute best practices and a prosecutor toolkit. Committee members asked for interim briefings and suggested site visits to Yakima to view an operational program and better understand costs, benefits and privacy controls.

Ending note: Both local and state labs described the technology as complementary to traditional DNA testing — a tool to speed leads and identification — but emphasized that validation, oversight and policy work remain necessary before rapid results are widely entered into forensic databases.