Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forensic Dna topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves expansion of state DNA database to include convicted felons; sponsor says program will aid investigations
Summary
The House passed a second-substitute of House Bill 154 to expand Utah—s DNA database to include all convicted felons (and certain juvenile categories), fund initial equipment with a $360,000 appropriation and rely on a $75 fee per convicted offender to sustain the program; backers said the change will help solve cold cases and prevent crime.
The Utah House passed second-substitute House Bill 154 on a 71-0 recorded vote, expanding the state—s DNA database to include all convicted felons and certain juvenile offenders. Sponsor Representative Wei, describing the measure as "a fairly technical bill," said the change is intended to help law enforcement solve crimes and exonerate the innocent.
"Expanding the state DNA database to include all convicted felons would have several benefits," Representative Wei said, listing "more crimes would be solved, more crimes would be prevented, more innocent people would be exonerated" and potential "cost efficiencies" for investigators. Wei and other backers cited a local cold-hit case they said would likely have gone unsolved without the database.
The bill sets collection on conviction (not arrest) and updates collection technique from blood draws to buccal swabs. Sponsor noted the $75 fee per convicted offender and a plan for an initial general-fund appropriation of $360,000 to buy freezers, kits and start-up equipment. "The $75 we've created a restricted account," the sponsor said, explaining that the restricted account and federal grants would fund analysis and long-term storage.
Members questioned funding assumptions and practicalities. Representative Daniels asked how collection, storage and processing would be paid for; Wei said the first-year appropriation would "fully fund it" and the fee would be deposited later into a restricted account, with federal grants expected for analysis. Representative Bradshaw pressed fiscal-note details about a $25 reimbursement to the Department of Corrections; the sponsor confirmed an amended fiscal note addresses that figure.
Several members also raised legal questions. Representative Lehi asked whether other states had faced challenges; Wei said she was "told that there is no case law whatsoever that puts us in any harm" and cited Virginia's experience as an example of a successful expansion.
The bill includes protections for victims—s restitution priority: the sponsor offered an amendment to retain priority for victim restitution ahead of program fees. The measure passed the House and will be forwarded to the Senate for further action.
The next step is Senate consideration; the sponsor said the House expects initial funding this session and federal grant effort to follow. The House debate focused on funding, the juvenile-age threshold for collection and constitutional risk; proponents emphasized law-enforcement benefits and a narrow, technical approach to the implementation details.
