Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Investigative Genetic Genealogy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House adopts limits on law enforcement use of investigative genetic genealogy
Summary
Third-substitute S.B. 156, which restricts law enforcement use of investigative genetic genealogy to violent crimes, requires opt-in consent for consumer databases and bars arrests based solely on IGG leads, passed the House 46–22 after floor debate emphasizing privacy guardrails and investigative value.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House on March 1 passed third-substitute S.B. 156, a bill that places guardrails around law enforcement use of investigative genetic genealogy (IGG).
Representative Steve Eliason, sponsor of the House measure, said the bill balances public safety and privacy by limiting IGG use to violent crimes, allowing searches only of consumer databases where users have opted in to law-enforcement matching, and requiring consultation with a prosecutor and state crime lab. "This bill puts guardrails and regulations around the use of this important technology," Eliason said, describing protections to limit raw-data access and to prevent arrests based solely on IGG leads.
Supporters from law enforcement and civil-rights perspectives spoke in favor. Representative Gwen, a former law enforcement professional, said guardrails provide clarity: "Law enforcement does support this bill…we actually like having these guardrails in place."
Representative Clancy, who has law enforcement experience, said the bill both protects privacy and preserves a useful investigative tool. He highlighted that the measure prevents IGG from being the sole basis for arrest and noted support from groups such as the Innocence Project.
Representative Chu asked technical questions about the bill's scope; Eliason clarified it does not mandate collection of DNA from deceased individuals nor create new routine collection practices. The sponsor and several proponents stressed that IGG is a lead-generating tool and that the bill codifies consent-based limits and prosecutorial oversight.
On final action the third substitute passed the House by roll-call 46 yea to 22 nay. The bill will be returned to the Senate for further consideration.
Next steps: If enacted, the bill would require implementing guidance for law enforcement and the state crime lab on reporting, consent, and data retention; the floor discussion identified that prosecutorial coordination and database consent mechanisms are key implementation tasks.
