Committee considers requiring DNA samples at felony arrest; supporters cite solved cold cases

The House Committee on Judiciary on March 25 heard testimony on House Bill 3,093, which would require collection of a DNA sample from people arrested for a person felony, a qualifying violent crime, or first-degree burglary, and transfer of the sample to the Oregon State Police forensic laboratory for profiling and entry into the national CODIS system, subject to statutory exceptions and post‑disposition removal procedures.

Representative Rick Lewis, the bill sponsor, framed the proposal with a decades-old case memory to underscore the investigative value of DNA evidence. He told the committee the measure would require collection, allow the arrestee to request a blood draw instead of a buccal swab, and permit petitioning for destruction of the sample if the arrest led to an acquittal, dismissal or reversal or if prosecution is not commenced within the statute of limitations. The bill includes a posted dash‑1 amendment that would require collection at a local correctional facility and direct officers to bring arrestees to that facility for the sample.

Ashley Spence, founder of the DNA Justice Project and a survivor whose attacker was later identified via a DNA match, urged passage. "When he was apprehended for an unrelated offense... they took a minimally invasive cheek swab. They uploaded it into our national DNA database, CODIS, and it hit a match back to mine and multiple others," Spence told the committee. She described research and state experiences: the testimony cited that 31 states have laws that require DNA collection at certain arrests and that expanded collection correlated with more matches and case closures in states such as Texas and New Mexico. Spence also said federal law allows destruction/expungement from the database after acquittal or dismissal and that laboratory audits and legal protections restrict access to identifying information.

Members questioned fiscal and operational impacts on the state crime lab. Representative Mannix suggested a Texas-style approach, and committee members noted the bill was previously considered and may be referred to Ways and Means because of lab workload and funding implications. The sponsor and witnesses said the state police would supply test kits and either process samples in-house or contract out for analysis, and the district attorney would notify the state police if retention authority ended because prosecution did not commence within the statute of limitations.

No committee vote was taken; the chair closed the public hearing and the committee carried the bill over for a work session.