House rejects expansion of DNA collection to certain assault convictions

The Utah House debated but did not advance first‑substitute House Bill 156, a proposal to require DNA samples upon conviction for certain violent assaults and a set of other offenses. The vote on the floor was 36 yes, 36 no, with 3 absent, and the bill failed.

Sponsor Representative Carrie Gibson described the bill as an effort to strengthen the state DNA database and to learn from cases in other states. She framed the change narrowly: the substitute would require DNA collection upon conviction for violent assaults — ‘‘on a violent assault, a Class B assault that we also take a DNA sample exactly like we do now on other crimes,’’ she said — and said offenders would share responsibility for collection costs similar to other post‑conviction fees.

Opponents and questioners raised constitutional and policy concerns about extending DNA collection down to Class B misdemeanors and cautioned about the scope of who would be pulled into a databank. Representative Hughes said the move into misdemeanors represented a “serious policy shift” and that the House should be careful. Representative Harper described the extension to lower‑level offenses as troubling and said he could not support the bill because it goes ‘‘to that low of a level of fine or of an infraction.’’

In response, Gibson said the bill requires collection only upon conviction and repeated supporters’ arguments that DNA has become a central investigative tool — ‘‘DNA is the new fingerprinting’’ — and recounted committee testimony that tied cold cases to DNA hits.

The bill did not secure a majority and was filed following the tie vote. Supporters and opponents acknowledged the topic’s sensitivity and suggested future hearings and narrower drafting might be necessary.