Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House rejects bill expanding DNA sampling from certain misdemeanor convictions for cold‑case work

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 1-57, which the sponsor described as a tool to aid the state crime lab in linking misdemeanor convictions to cold cases and serious offenses, failed on a tied vote after floor debate and a recorded roll-call.

House Bill 1-57, presented March 7 by the Representative from 14, would have expanded sampling in certain misdemeanor convictions (the sponsor cited domestic violence, battery, indecent exposure, solicitation and second-degree stalking) so the Idaho State Police crime lab could search those profiles for links to cold cases.

The sponsor described the measure as an investigative tool to help close serious unsolved crimes: "This bill started, when the Idaho State Police lab contacted me and said we have a way to enhance the capability to close cases and find cases on pedophiles, rapists, and murderers ... Currently, the way the DNA is worked, the DNA lab, they take DNA for serious crimes, felonies, and in this case, *** offenders that are registered. ... They use the example that I don't recall, but there was a serial ****** here back in 02/2010 down at Boise State ... if we had that sampling there, we're gonna close this case."

The sponsor said the lab expects a modest increase in searchable profiles but argued the public‑safety value in identifying repeat or escalating offenders and closing cold cases justified the change.

After brief floor discussion the House recorded a tie vote. The clerk reported 34 ayes, 34 nays and two members absent and excused; the Speaker announced the bill failed to pass the House and it was filed in the office of the chief clerk.

Why it matters: proponents framed the bill as an investigative aid to resolve serious crimes and protect the public; opponents (floor debate was limited in the provided excerpt) apparently prevented the measure from reaching a majority in the House.