{ "name": "USCLI Forensic Ledger entries", "publisher": "United States Council for Law & Investigation", "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "homepage": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker", "entries": [ { "state": "Pennsylvania", "id": "act-41", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/pennsylvania#act-41", "date": "2026-09-18", "title": "DNA law updated for the new promoting-prostitution offense", "type": "Act 41 of 2026 (SB 45), sec. 6, P.L. 492", "summary": "In the definition of “felony sex offense” in 44 Pa.C.S. 2303, the act replaces the reference to 18 Pa.C.S. 5902(c)(1)(iv) with 18 Pa.C.S. 3027, the new promoting-prostitution offense the act creates. Every felony already required a sample, so the change does not widen who gives DNA. Section 9 sets the effective date at 60 days after approval, which is September 18, 2026.", "forPractitioners": "A conviction for felony promoting prostitution under the new section 3027 counts as a felony sex offense for the DNA law.", "sources": [ { "label": "Act 41 of 2026", "url": "https://www.palegis.us/statutes/unconsolidated/law-information/view-statute?txtType=PDF&SessYr=2026&ActNum=0041.&SessInd=0" }, { "label": "44 Pa.C.S. 2303", "url": "https://www.palegis.us/statutes/consolidated/view-statute?txtType=PDF&ttl=44&div=00.&chpt=23&sctn=03&subsctn=0" } ] }, { "state": "Arizona", "id": "sb-1123", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/arizona#sb-1123", "date": "2026-09-12", "title": "Trainee autopsies may be supervised by a physician trained, not board certified, in forensic pathology", "type": "Laws 2026, ch. 33 (SB 1123), A.R.S. 11-594", "summary": "A county medical examiner may authorize medical students, and residents and fellows in pathology training, to perform autopsies under a licensed physician “trained” in forensic pathology. The words “board certified” were struck (11-594(B)(2)). Pathologist assistants must still work under the direct supervision of a physician board certified in forensic pathology (11-594(B)(3)). The act also extends the disease-exposure testing provisions of A.R.S. 32-3207 to persons authorized to perform medical examiner duties, including supervised trainees, and makes conforming changes to 36-831.", "forPractitioners": "When a trainee performed the autopsy, ask for the supervising physician’s forensic pathology training and certification.", "sources": [ { "label": "Laws 2026, ch. 33", "url": "https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/2R/laws/0033.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Colorado", "id": "sb26-132", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/colorado#sb26-132", "date": "2026-08-12", "title": "Officers must offer a voluntary breath screening test after serious crashes", "type": "SB 26-132, session law ch. 370", "summary": "When a driver is in a collision that causes death or suspected serious bodily injury, an officer must, with certain exceptions, offer the driver a voluntary preliminary alcohol screening test of the breath, after telling the driver that they may refuse or agree. If the device malfunctions, cannot give a valid result, or is unavailable for reasons beyond the officer’s control, the officer must record in the crash incident report that no test was given and why. The act appropriates $90,000 from the parks and outdoor recreation cash fund and $30,000 from the wildlife cash fund to the Department of Natural Resources for Colorado Parks and Wildlife to carry it out. This description comes from the legislature’s summary of the act as enacted.", "forPractitioners": "In a fatal or serious-injury crash case, check the incident report for the offer of a screening test or the recorded reason none was given.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 26-132", "url": "https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-132" } ] }, { "state": "Colorado", "id": "sb26-105", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/colorado#sb26-105", "date": "2026-08-12", "title": "Coroner credential rule narrowed to counties over 300,000", "type": "SB 26-105, session law ch. 83, C.R.S. 30-10-601.5, 30-10-625", "summary": "The requirement that a coroner be a certified death investigator or a certified forensic pathologist now applies only in counties over 300,000 people, up from 150,000. New section 30-10-625 requires a coroner to disclose on the coroner’s website any financial interest in a death-care business the office regulates, such as a mortuary, funeral home or crematory. A coroner who has disclosed an interest may not take part in official action that would directly and specifically affect that business (30-10-625(4)). The act does not bar coroners from running a death-care business.", "forPractitioners": "In a county between 150,000 and 300,000 people, the coroner no longer needs the credential.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 26-105, final act", "url": "https://leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/114941/download" } ] }, { "state": "Oklahoma", "id": "hb-4056", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/oklahoma#hb-4056", "date": "2026-08", "title": "Capital financing for the OSBI Forensic Science Center", "type": "HB 4056 (2026)", "summary": "New 73 O.S. 187A-15 authorizes the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority to use $21,215,000 from the Legacy Capital Financing Fund for the OSBI to “Construct, refurbish, or expand the Forensic Science Center” and to buy or build warehouses. The money must be repaid to the fund through recapitalization payments. This is a financing authorization, not a regular appropriation. The act has no effective-date section, so it took effect 90 days after the 2026 session adjourned, in August 2026; the exact day could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026.", "forPractitioners": "Lab capacity may change as the project proceeds; the act sets no lab standards.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 4056", "url": "https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2025-26%20ENR/HB/HB4056%20ENR.PDF" }, { "label": "Bill history", "url": "https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB4056&Session=2600" } ] }, { "state": "New Jersey", "id": "njre-702-comment", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/new-jersey#njre-702-comment", "date": "2026-07-23", "title": "Official comment ties Rule 702 to the Accutane and Olenowski standards", "type": "2026 Official Court Comment on N.J.R.E. 702", "summary": "The comment says N.J.R.E. 702 “incorporates the expert reliability standard for civil cases prescribed in In re Accutane Litigation” and the standard “for criminal cases prescribed in State v. Olenowski.” Trial courts must do “a rigorous gatekeeping analysis” of the expert’s method using non-exclusive factors drawn from Daubert. The comment restates the case-law standard; the rule text is unchanged and still has no “more likely than not” wording.", "forPractitioners": "Cite the comment along with Olenowski when asking for a reliability hearing on a forensic method.", "sources": [ { "label": "N.J.R.E. 702 and comment", "url": "https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/evidence/7" } ] }, { "state": "Michigan", "id": "frt-funding", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/michigan#frt-funding", "date": "2026-07-21", "title": "Revenue-sharing money may not pay for facial recognition", "type": "2025 PA 22 (HB 4706) and 2026 PA 21 (SB 878), section 959", "summary": "In two budget acts, public safety revenue-sharing distributions to cities, villages, townships, and counties “must not be used for … the acquisition or use of facial recognition technology,” defined as an automated or semiautomated process that helps identify or verify a person from their face. The limit sits in annual appropriations, not in the compiled laws, and reaches only those distributions.", "forPractitioners": "Ask how a local agency paid for any facial recognition tool used in a case.", "sources": [ { "label": "2025 PA 22", "url": "https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/publicact/pdf/2025-PA-0022.pdf" }, { "label": "2026 PA 21", "url": "https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/publicact/pdf/2026-PA-0021.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Illinois", "id": "pa-104-573", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/illinois#pa-104-573", "date": "2026-07-14", "title": "Certificates of innocence for juveniles and non-prison sentences", "type": "P.A. 104-573 (HB 3663)", "summary": "735 ILCS 5/2-702 now covers people convicted “or adjudicated a delinquent” who served any part of a sentence in a State prison, county jail, county juvenile detention facility, or Illinois Youth Center, on parole or probation, or as a registered sex offender. Before, it covered only people who were imprisoned. A petitioner may be innocent of “one or more” offenses, not “all.”", "forPractitioners": "A client who served probation after a conviction later vacated on forensic grounds may now petition.", "sources": [ { "label": "P.A. 104-573", "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/PublicActs/104/104-0573.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Pennsylvania", "id": "rapid-dna-budget", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/pennsylvania#rapid-dna-budget", "date": "2026-07-12", "title": "Rapid DNA Coverdell federal appropriation ($250,000, fiscal 2026–27 only)", "type": "Act 1A of 2026 (HB 2400), General Appropriation Act, sec. 204", "summary": "Under the Attorney General’s line for joint local-State firearm task forces, the act appropriates “Rapid DNA Coverdell - DOJ. Federal appropriation” of $250,000 for July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027. This is one year of spending authority for federal grant money, not state money and not a standing program. Whether the grant was received is not shown. It is the first such line in the budgets for fiscal 2023–24 through 2026–27. No statute authorizes or regulates Rapid DNA; the DNA chapter, 44 Pa.C.S. chapter 23, has no Rapid DNA provision.", "forPractitioners": "In a firearm task force case with a Rapid DNA result, ask what procedures governed the testing, since no statute sets them.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 2400, PN 3765", "url": "https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/text/HTM/2025/0/HB2400/PN3765" }, { "label": "Bill history", "url": "https://www.palegis.us/legislation/bills/2025/hb2400" } ] }, { "state": "Florida", "id": "device-warrants-2026", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/florida#device-warrants-2026", "date": "2026-07-01", "title": "Device search warrants: 365-day return, no analysis deadline", "type": "Ch. 2026-177, s. 2 (CS/HB 359)", "summary": "Section 933.05 was restructured. A warrant for a computer or electronic device, including data on it, must be returned within 365 days. It is timely executed if the device is seized within 10 days, and the agency need not finish analyzing or reviewing the data within the return period. Warrants for DNA specimens must be returned within 30 days, and warrants to out-of-state providers for electronic communications data within 20 days.", "forPractitioners": "Under the 2026 rules, analysis of device data may continue after the warrant is returned.", "sources": [ { "label": "Ch. 2026-177", "url": "https://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2026-177.pdf" }, { "label": "s. 933.05", "url": "https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0933/Sections/0933.05.html" } ] }, { "state": "Florida", "id": "icac", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/florida#icac", "date": "2026-07-01", "title": "Child exploitation grants may pay for digital forensics", "type": "Ch. 2026-96 (CS/SB 656)", "summary": "The Online Sting Operations Grant Program is renamed the Internet Crimes Against Children Grant Program (s. 943.0411), and its uses now include “investigative or digital forensics training, hardware, or software.” The act also creates the ICAC Task Force Funding Program (s. 943.0421), which sends 80 percent to task forces and 20 percent to FDLE.", "forPractitioners": "Funding only; no new standards for digital forensic work.", "sources": [ { "label": "Ch. 2026-96", "url": "https://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2026-096.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Massachusetts", "id": "dna-sol", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/massachusetts#dna-sol", "date": "2026-07-01", "title": "No time limit for rape charges when DNA identifies the suspect late", "type": "St. 2026, c. 137, sec. 89 (fiscal 2027 budget)", "summary": "A new paragraph in G.L. c. 277, sec. 63 says an indictment or complaint for an offense under sections 22 to 23B of chapter 265 “may be found and filed at any time” if the person was identified after the limitation period and the identity “has been established through a DNA analysis, as defined in section 1 of chapter 22E, using evidence collected at the time of the commission of the offense.” Every other offense in that range, sections 22A to 23B, already had no time limit. The change matters most for rape under section 22, which otherwise has a 15-year limit.", "forPractitioners": "In a late rape charge, check that the identification came from a DNA analysis of evidence collected at the time of the offense.", "sources": [ { "label": "St. 2026, c. 137", "url": "https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2026/Chapter137" }, { "label": "G.L. c. 277, sec. 63", "url": "https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Chapter277/Section63" } ] }, { "state": "Massachusetts", "id": "kit-retention", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/massachusetts#kit-retention", "date": "2026-07-01", "title": "Sexual assault kits kept for at least 15 years", "type": "St. 2026, c. 137, sec. 50 (fiscal 2027 budget)", "summary": "The act rewrote G.L. c. 41, sec. 97B½. Two things are new: all sexual assault evidence kits “shall be retained for at least 15 years,” and labs must test kits within 30 days “notwithstanding the statute of limitations on the underlying offense.” The 30-day testing duty, entry of DNA profiles into CODIS and the state database, and entry into the kit tracking system were already law under St. 2018, c. 69.", "forPractitioners": "A kit should still exist for at least 15 years, and an expired limitation period is no reason to skip testing.", "sources": [ { "label": "St. 2026, c. 137", "url": "https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2026/Chapter137" }, { "label": "St. 2018, c. 69", "url": "https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2018/Chapter69" } ] }, { "state": "North Carolina", "id": "commission-rename", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/north-carolina#commission-rename", "date": "2026-07-01", "title": "Innocence Inquiry Commission renamed the Postconviction Review Commission", "type": "S.L. 2026-41 (S.B. 257), s. 16.10", "summary": "The act rewrote Article 92 of Chapter 15A to rename the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission the North Carolina Postconviction Review Commission. It made matching changes in G.S. 15A-268, 15A-1411, 15A-1417, 15A-1418, 132-1.4, and 143-318.18. The section changes only the name, not the Commission’s procedures. The statute pages on the Legislature’s website had not caught up as of October 19, 2026.", "forPractitioners": "Use the new name in filings; the claim process is the same.", "sources": [ { "label": "S.L. 2026-41", "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2025-2026/SL2026-41.html" } ] }, { "state": "North Carolina", "id": "lab-study", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/north-carolina#lab-study", "date": "2026-07-01", "title": "Eastern regional crime lab study money redirected", "type": "S.L. 2026-41 (S.B. 257), s. 18.2", "summary": "The Department of Justice must transfer any unspent money from the S.L. 2021-180, s. 18.9 study to the Department of Adult Correction to replace high-mileage vehicles. That 2021 section provided up to $1.5 million for a study, with Elizabeth City State University, on siting an Eastern Regional Laboratory.", "forPractitioners": "No new regional lab is in the works under this funding.", "sources": [ { "label": "S.L. 2026-41", "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2025-2026/SL2026-41.html" }, { "label": "S.L. 2021-180", "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2021-2022/SL2021-180.html" } ] }, { "state": "Oklahoma", "id": "sb-1859", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/oklahoma#sb-1859", "date": "2026-07-01", "title": "OSBI Cyber Crime and Fraud Unit to provide digital forensics", "type": "SB 1859 (2026)", "summary": "New 74 O.S. 150.19c creates a Cyber Crime and Fraud Unit inside the OSBI. It must “Provide digital forensics, technical assistance, and analytical support” to OSBI agents and requesting agencies, and keep staff that include “forensic examiners.” It does not expand OSBI jurisdiction. The act creates a revolving fund made up of money the OSBI receives for it. It sets no standards for digital forensic work, and digital evidence stays outside the accreditation mandate.", "forPractitioners": "Digital forensic results from this unit come from a lab function the accreditation statute does not cover.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 1859", "url": "https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2025-26%20ENR/SB/SB1859%20ENR.PDF" } ] }, { "state": "Virginia", "id": "frt-sunset", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/virginia#frt-sunset", "date": "2026-07-01", "title": "Facial recognition law expires; local and campus police ban returns", "type": "2022 Acts ch. 737 (SB 741), enactment clause 3", "summary": "The 2022 act that authorized and limited police use of facial recognition expired on July 1, 2026, and no extension was enacted. Va. Code 15.2-1723.2 and 23.1-815.1 reverted to their 2021 text: no local law enforcement agency or campus police department may buy or deploy facial recognition technology unless a statute expressly authorizes it, and a statute that does not refer to the technology does not count. Va. Code 52-4.5, which set authorized uses and a model policy for the State Police, has no version in force after July 1, 2026.", "forPractitioners": "A facial recognition lead from a local or campus police agency after June 30, 2026 needs a statute that expressly authorizes it.", "sources": [ { "label": "Va. Code 15.2-1723.2", "url": "https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/15.2-1723.2/" }, { "label": "Va. Code 23.1-815.1", "url": "https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/23.1-815.1/" }, { "label": "Va. Code 52-4.5", "url": "https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/52-4.5/" }, { "label": "2022 Acts ch. 737", "url": "https://legacylis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+ful+CHAP0737" } ] }, { "state": "Virginia", "id": "sealing-dna", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/virginia#sealing-dna", "date": "2026-07-01", "title": "New sealing path does not expunge DNA profiles", "type": "HB 2723 (2025 Acts ch. 671); SB 1466 (2025 Acts ch. 634)", "summary": "Va. Code 19.2-310.7(B) now says a sealing order under the new 19.2-392.12:1, like orders under 19.2-392.7 and 19.2-392.12, is not grounds to expunge a person’s DNA profile from the data bank. This is one small part of a large record sealing act.", "forPractitioners": "A sealed record does not take the person’s profile out of the data bank.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 2723", "url": "https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/HB2723/text/CHAP0671" }, { "label": "SB 1466", "url": "https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/SB1466/text/CHAP0634" }, { "label": "Va. Code 19.2-310.7", "url": "https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/19.2-310.7/" } ] }, { "state": "Washington", "id": "wrongly-convicted", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/washington#wrongly-convicted", "date": "2026-06-11", "title": "Wrongly Convicted Persons Act broadened", "type": "2026 c 224 (SSB 5520)", "summary": "New RCW 4.100.015 defines “actually innocent” and other terms, judged on a preponderance of the evidence. An agent may now file for a claimant who is dead, incapacitated, a minor, or out of state. Qualifying events now include a pardon, commutation, or reprieve on grounds consistent with innocence, and a reversal or vacatur after significant new exculpatory information followed by dismissal, an Alford or Newton plea, or a retrial without conviction. The claimant must show they did not commit the charged acts and did not commit perjury or fabricate evidence; a false or illegally obtained confession or a guilty plea is not fabricated evidence. Confinement includes civil detention. Vacaturs under Blake or Andress alone do not qualify. The attorney general must concede when the criteria are met, but may instead ask for an evidentiary hearing if the vacatur came without one or the new information is a recantation with no judicial finding of credibility.", "forPractitioners": "After a forensic-based vacatur and dismissal, check the new qualifying events before filing. The DNA testing motion did not change.", "sources": [ { "label": "2026 c 224", "url": "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Htm/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5520-S.SL.htm" }, { "label": "Chapter 4.100 RCW", "url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=4.100&full=true" } ] }, { "state": "Texas", "id": "fsc-rules", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/texas#fsc-rules", "date": "2026-04-24", "title": "Commission rules: rapid DNA discipline, new licenses, exemptions", "type": "37 TAC chapter 651 (amended)", "summary": "On July 25, 2025 the Commission amended Rule 651.5 to make rapid DNA analysis its own accreditation discipline, following an FBI change that lets rapid DNA crime scene samples be searched in CODIS under set conditions. On April 24, 2026 it voted to exempt exams of non-lethal munitions from accreditation and licensing (Rule 651.7) and to amend the Code of Professional Responsibility in Rule 651.219 to clarify, in the minutes’ words, its “applicability to accredited law enforcement agency crime laboratory managers only.” Earlier votes, including on July 26, 2024, revised license expiration dates (Rules 651.207 and 651.208) and added voluntary licenses, which by fiscal 2025 covered six new categories including latent print processing technicians and crime scene reconstruction analysts. The Texas Register effective dates of these rules could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026.", "forPractitioners": "Labs running rapid DNA need accreditation in that discipline, not under general forensic biology.", "sources": [ { "label": "Commission annual report, FY2025", "url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461696/14th-annual-report-11122025.pdf" }, { "label": "Minutes, April 24, 2026", "url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1463108/d_04242026-fsc-meeting-minutes.pdf" }, { "label": "Minutes, July 26, 2024", "url": "https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459402/07262024-meeting-minutes.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Virginia", "id": "hb-680", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/virginia#hb-680", "date": "2026-04-06", "title": "Board and committee members serve until replaced", "type": "HB 680 (2026 Acts ch. 202), emergency", "summary": "Governor-appointed members of the Forensic Science Board and the Scientific Advisory Committee now serve past the end of their terms until a successor is appointed (Va. Code 9.1-1109(C), 9.1-1111). The act also corrects the name of the Commonwealth’s Attorneys association in 9.1-1109 and drops the requirement that the Committee meet in Richmond (9.1-1112).", "forPractitioners": "No change to lab practice; the oversight bodies keep their members while appointments are pending.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 680", "url": "https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB680/text/CHAP0202" }, { "label": "Va. Code 9.1-1109", "url": "https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/9.1-1109/" } ] }, { "state": "Colorado", "id": "hb26-1020", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/colorado#hb26-1020", "date": "2026-03-26", "title": "Field drug tests: summons instead of arrest for low-level possession, and a plea warning", "type": "HB 26-1020, session law ch. 12, C.R.S. 18-18-102, 18-18-403.5 and others", "summary": "The act defines a “colorimetric field drug test” as a presumptive color-change screen done outside a forensic lab by someone other than a forensic chemist (18-18-102(4.5)). When such a test was used and the only basis for arrest is a level 1 drug misdemeanor for possession, or a municipal possession charge, an officer must issue a summons instead of arresting (18-18-403.5(7)); parallel changes were made to 16-2-104, 16-3-105 and 16-5-206. Before accepting a plea from anyone charged with possession under 18-18-403.5(1), (2) or (2.5), or with municipal drug possession, where a field test was used, the judge must advise that these tests “are subject to false positive results,” “have known error rates and are inadmissible in court,” and that the defendant may plead not guilty and “request drug testing by an accredited forensic laboratory” (18-18-403.5(8)). The act applies to offenses committed on or after March 26, 2026.", "forPractitioners": "Before a possession plea in a field-test case, make sure the advisement was given and consider asking for lab testing.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 26-1020, final act", "url": "https://leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/113239/download" } ] }, { "state": "New Jersey", "id": "c350-kit-deadlines", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/new-jersey#c350-kit-deadlines", "date": "2026-01-20", "title": "10-day lab deadline for sexual assault kits; unreported kits kept 20 years", "type": "P.L.2025, c.350 (A3753/S3089), N.J.S.A. 52:4B-44.3a", "summary": "Every State, county and municipal police agency must submit every consented kit to the appropriate forensic lab within 10 calendar days of the exam. Exam facilities must notify police within 24 hours, and police must take the kit within 3 business days. Kits from victims who have not reported or consented must be kept at least 20 years from collection, or for minors 20 years after age 18. A victim may report and submit the kit for testing at any time in that period. The Attorney General must issue or amend guidelines. No earlier statutory submission deadline was found.", "forPractitioners": "Compare the exam date with the lab submission date; a gap of more than 10 days misses the statutory deadline.", "sources": [ { "label": "P.L.2025, c.350", "url": "https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2024/PL25/350_.HTM" } ] }, { "state": "Arizona", "id": "r-25-0029", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/arizona#r-25-0029", "date": "2026-01-01", "title": "Ethics comment on evidence a lawyer suspects is altered or generated", "type": "Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-25-0029, ER 3.3 Comment [8]", "summary": "A new passage in Comment [8] to ER 3.3 addresses evidence a lawyer reasonably believes “has been materially altered or generated with the intent to deceive the court.” The comment calls for a reasonable inquiry before the lawyer offers it. Factors in how far the inquiry must go may include the evidence’s probative value, the value or importance of the case or issue, its source, and whether affordable tools to check authenticity are available. If after inquiry the lawyer still does not know the evidence is false, “the lawyer retains discretion to submit the evidence.” This is commentary only: there is no new rule text and no authentication standard for courts or labs. The same order’s change to ER 1.16 requires lawyers to assess the risk that a client will use their services for a crime or fraud, with money laundering and terrorist financing among the examples in the comment; it does not concern evidence.", "forPractitioners": "The comment does not set an authentication standard; challenge suspect digital evidence under the Rules of Evidence.", "sources": [ { "label": "Order R-25-0029", "url": "https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/20/2008-2025%20Rule%20Minutes-Orders/2025%20Rules/R-25-0029%20FinalRulesOrder.PDF" } ] }, { "state": "California", "id": "sb-733", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/california#sb-733", "date": "2026-01-01", "title": "Survivors may defer testing of a sexual assault kit", "type": "SB 733 (Stats. 2025, ch. 783)", "summary": "Penal Code 680, the Sexual Assault Victims’ DNA Bill of Rights, already let a victim ask that a kit not be tested. SB 733 restructures that right. A survivor aged 18 or older who has not decided whether to report may ask that the evidence not be tested. The investigating agency then holds the kit, or the lab returns it, until the survivor asks for testing.", "forPractitioners": "Agencies holding deferred kits should track them and submit them for testing when the survivor asks.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 733", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB733" } ] }, { "state": "California", "id": "sb-524", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/california#sb-524", "date": "2026-01-01", "title": "Police reports drafted with AI must say so", "type": "SB 524 (Stats. 2025, ch. 587)", "summary": "New Penal Code 13663 requires each agency to have a policy that any official report written fully or partly with AI carries a disclosure statement and the officer’s signature. The first AI draft must be kept as long as the official report. A draft other than the official report is not an officer’s statement. Agencies must keep an audit trail, and vendors may not share or sell agency data except as the section allows.", "forPractitioners": "Ask for the first AI draft and the audit trail when a report carries the disclosure.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 524", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB524" }, { "label": "Penal Code 13663", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=13663." } ] }, { "state": "California", "id": "ab-1036", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/california#ab-1036", "date": "2026-01-01", "title": "Postconviction discovery reaches more cases", "type": "AB 1036 (Stats. 2025, ch. 444)", "summary": "Discovery under Penal Code 1054.9 in habeas and motion-to-vacate cases now covers any felony that led to state prison. Before, it covered only serious or violent felonies with sentences of 15 years or more. Discovery materials now include materials held by the prosecution and law enforcement that tend to negate guilt, mitigate the offense or sentence, or are otherwise favorable, and anything the person would get if tried today. For felony convictions on or after July 1, 2026 that lead to state prison, trial counsel must keep the client’s file for the term of imprisonment; an electronic copy counts only if every item is copied digitally in color.", "forPractitioners": "In any felony case that led to state prison, use 1054.9 to get lab reports and bench notes after good-faith efforts to get them from trial counsel fail.", "sources": [ { "label": "AB 1036", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1036" } ] }, { "state": "California", "id": "frt-traffic", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/california#frt-traffic", "date": "2026-01-01", "title": "Facial recognition barred in new traffic camera programs", "type": "AB 645 (Stats. 2023, ch. 808); SB 1297 (Stats. 2024, ch. 631); AB 289 (Stats. 2025, ch. 684); SB 720 (Stats. 2025, ch. 782)", "summary": "Each act added a camera enforcement program to the Vehicle Code: sections 22425 (2024), 22435 (2025), and 22445 and 21455.9 (2026). Each section says the use of facial recognition technology with the system “shall be prohibited.” Sections 22425, 22435, and 22445 are repealed January 1, 2032.", "forPractitioners": "The ban covers only these camera programs. No California statute regulates police facial recognition in general.", "sources": [ { "label": "Veh. Code 22425", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=22425." }, { "label": "Veh. Code 21455.9", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=21455.9." } ] }, { "state": "Illinois", "id": "pa-104-339", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/illinois#pa-104-339", "date": "2026-01-01", "title": "Lab deadlines for missing persons and unidentified remains DNA", "type": "P.A. 104-339 (SB 24)", "summary": "The Missing Persons Identification Act was rewritten. Police must enter a missing person report in LEADS immediately, try to collect DNA samples from family members, and send them to an accredited CODIS lab within 90 days of the report. State Police labs or other accredited labs upload the profiles to the state and national DNA indexes. A case still open after 60 days goes into NamUs. For unidentified remains, if fingerprints do not identify the person, a forensic odontologist must examine the teeth within 45 days of recovery. If that fails, blood, tissue, or bone goes to a CODIS accredited lab within 90 days. Badly decomposed or skeletal remains also get a forensic anthropology exam within 60 days.", "forPractitioners": "Check these deadlines when an identification came late in a death investigation.", "sources": [ { "label": "P.A. 104-339", "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/ftp/Public%20Acts/104/104-0339.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Illinois", "id": "pa-104-24", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/illinois#pa-104-24", "date": "2026-01-01", "title": "Commission chair serves a 2-year term", "type": "P.A. 104-24 (SB 1764)", "summary": "Beginning January 1, 2026, the Governor names the chair of the Forensic Science Commission for a 2-year term (20 ILCS 2605/2605-615).", "forPractitioners": "Governance only; no change to lab duties.", "sources": [ { "label": "20 ILCS 2605/2605-615", "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/ftp/ILCS/Ch%200020/Act%202605/002026050K2605-615.html" } ] }, { "state": "North Carolina", "id": "mar-deadline", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/north-carolina#mar-deadline", "date": "2025-12-01", "title": "Seven-year deadline for noncapital motions for appropriate relief", "type": "S.L. 2025-70 (S.B. 429), s. 15", "summary": "New G.S. 15A-1415(a1) requires a noncapital motion for appropriate relief to be filed within seven years of the latest triggering event, such as the end of direct appeal. Some grounds may still be raised at any time. Newly discovered evidence was already one of them and still must be raised within a reasonable time of discovery. New for noncapital cases is good cause plus actual prejudice, or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. A retroactive significant change in law and a fully served sentence moved into the same list. Any ground may be raised at any time if the district attorney consents (new subsection (c1)).", "forPractitioners": "A claim resting only on discredited forensic testimony, filed late, needs an exception or the prosecutor’s consent. Convictions before December 1, 2025 are not affected.", "sources": [ { "label": "S.L. 2025-70", "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2025-2026/SL2025-70.html" } ] }, { "state": "North Carolina", "id": "capital-mar", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/north-carolina#capital-mar", "date": "2025-12-01", "title": "Capital postconviction hearings within 24 months", "type": "S.L. 2025-93 (H.B. 307), s. 6", "summary": "A hearing on a capital motion for appropriate relief must be held within 24 months of filing unless the court finds extraordinary circumstances in writing (G.S. 15A-1415(a)). This applies to pending motions; motions filed more than 24 months before December 1, 2025 must be scheduled by December 1, 2026 and heard by December 1, 2027. New G.S. 15A-2007 puts venue for postconviction filings by death-sentenced defendants in the county of conviction.", "forPractitioners": "Forensic claims in capital cases now move on a fixed schedule. The grounds for relief did not change.", "sources": [ { "label": "S.L. 2025-93", "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2025-2026/SL2025-93.html" } ] }, { "state": "New Jersey", "id": "nieves-sbs", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/new-jersey#nieves-sbs", "date": "2025-11-20", "title": "Shaken Baby Syndrome testimony based on shaking alone excluded under Frye", "type": "State v. Nieves and State v. Cifelli (N.J. Supreme Court, A-26/27-23)", "summary": "The Court affirmed exclusion of State expert testimony that shaking alone, without impact, caused the triad of symptoms. The State “has not met its burden in establishing the reliability of SBS/AHT testimony here” under Frye, which governed because the matters were ruled on before Olenowski. The State may still present physical evidence of trauma or other abuse, and may try a future Daubert showing on new science. Justice Wainer Apter dissented, noting that every other state admits the testimony.", "forPractitioners": "In a pending or past shaking-only case, the ruling supports a challenge to the medical testimony; it does not bar evidence of impact or other abuse.", "sources": [ { "label": "State v. Nieves", "url": "https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a_26_27_23.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Maryland", "id": "fgg-affidavit", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/maryland#fgg-affidavit", "date": "2025-10-01", "title": "Genetic genealogy affidavit: unknown perpetrator, and no need to exhaust every lead", "type": "2025 Md. Laws ch. 135 (HB 301), Crim. Proc. 17-101, 17-102", "summary": "The sworn affidavit an agent must submit, with prosecutor approval, to get judicial authorization for genetic genealogy now must state that “the identity of the perpetrator is unknown” (17-102(b)(1)(i)). The existing criteria were renumbered: a qualifying crime, a sample believed to come from the putative perpetrator, a profile already searched in state and national databases without a match, and, except in ongoing-threat cases, reasonable investigative leads pursued and failed ((b)(1)(v)). The bill as introduced would have deleted the leads requirement; that deletion was removed before passage. New (b)(2) says nothing in the subsection requires “that all investigative leads have been exhausted.”", "forPractitioners": "The affidavit must still show reasonable leads were pursued, but not that every lead was exhausted.", "sources": [ { "label": "2025 Md. Laws ch. 135", "url": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/Chapters_noln/CH_135_hb0301e.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Maryland", "id": "dna-database-2025", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/maryland#dna-database-2025", "date": "2025-10-01", "title": "DNA database adds sex offender registrants and ties arrestee testing to probable cause", "type": "2025 Md. Laws chs. 91 and 92 (HB 259 / SB 202), Pub. Safety 2-501, 2-504, 2-511", "summary": "People required to register as sex offenders must give a sample when they first register (2-504(a)(4)). The old rule that an arrestee sample could not be tested “prior to the first scheduled arraignment date” was replaced: testing may occur only after a probable cause finding, an arrest on a warrant, an information or an indictment for a qualifying crime, or with consent. Refusal is now a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $1,000. An untested arrestee sample that never met the testing conditions is destroyed after 2 years. Automatic expungement does not apply while a trial on a qualifying charge “remains pending for any reason” (2-511(a)(3)). A transition rule requires destroying, by October 1, 2028, pre-act samples not tested by November 1, 2027.", "forPractitioners": "A registrant can be in the database without a Maryland felony conviction; check the basis for any profile.", "sources": [ { "label": "2025 Md. Laws ch. 91", "url": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/Chapters_noln/CH_91_hb0259t.pdf" }, { "label": "ch. 92", "url": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/Chapters_noln/CH_92_sb0202e.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "North Carolina", "id": "digital-examiners", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/north-carolina#digital-examiners", "date": "2025-10-01", "title": "Trainee permits for private digital forensic examiners", "type": "S.L. 2025-51, Part II, s. 2", "summary": "The Private Protective Services Board may now issue a trainee permit in place of a digital forensic examiner license, as it already could for private investigators, if the trainee works under a licensee’s direct supervision (G.S. 74C-2(c)). A licensed digital forensic examiner may supervise no more than five trainees at a time.", "forPractitioners": "A private digital examiner may be a trainee; ask who supervised the work.", "sources": [ { "label": "S.L. 2025-51", "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2025-2026/SL2025-51.html" } ] }, { "state": "Oklahoma", "id": "rule-702", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/oklahoma#rule-702", "date": "2025-09-01", "title": "Rule 702 now matches the 2023 federal rule", "type": "Laws 2025, c. 311, sec. 9 (SB 453)", "summary": "12 O.S. 2702 now lets an expert testify only “if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that” the four conditions are met. The fourth now reads “the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application” of the principles and methods, in place of “the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably.” Section 8 of the act adds 12 O.S. 1782 on challenges to expert testimony in civil cases; the act does not address its effect in criminal cases.", "forPractitioners": "Prosecution forensic experts must now meet an express preponderance showing on each prong.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 453", "url": "https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2025-26%20ENR/SB/SB453%20ENR.PDF" }, { "label": "Bill history", "url": "https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SB453&Session=2500" } ] }, { "state": "Texas", "id": "sb-1372", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/texas#sb-1372", "date": "2025-09-01", "title": "Crime lab portal access limited to defense counsel", "type": "SB 1372 (89th Leg.), ch. 822", "summary": "Gov’t Code 411.164 now lets prosecutors designate only the defendant’s attorney, not a defendant acting pro se, for access to the statewide crime lab records portal. It applies to proceedings that begin on or after September 1, 2025.", "forPractitioners": "Lab records requests through the portal now come from defense counsel only.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 1372", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB01372F.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Texas", "id": "sb-1660", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/texas#sb-1660", "date": "2025-09-01", "title": "Labs must report held DWI toxicology evidence each year", "type": "SB 1660 (89th Leg.), ch. 1147", "summary": "A crime lab holding blood or urine evidence in a Penal Code chapter 49 case must tell the county prosecutor each year, with the date received (art. 38.50(c-1)). Where a prosecutor’s office requires approval before destruction, the lab may destroy the evidence if the office does not deny a request in writing within 90 days and the retention period has expired (38.50(h)).", "forPractitioners": "Calendar the annual notice and the 90-day window before destroying toxicology samples.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 1660", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB01660F.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Texas", "id": "hb-1422-sb-608", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/texas#hb-1422-sb-608", "date": "2025-09-01", "title": "Survivors may consent to kit DNA testing without a police report", "type": "HB 1422 (89th Leg.), ch. 557; SB 608 (89th Leg.), ch. 22", "summary": "New Gov’t Code 420.0736 lets a sexual assault survivor give limited consent to Department of Public Safety DNA testing of kit evidence without reporting to law enforcement. Results from that testing are not compared with DNA databases or used in a criminal investigation or trial. SB 608 requires the annual report on the statewide kit tracking system to count kits that law enforcement did not collect within the deadlines in 420.035.", "forPractitioners": "Do not upload or search profiles from limited-consent kits.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 1422", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB01422F.htm" }, { "label": "SB 608", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00608F.htm" }, { "label": "Gov’t Code chapter 420", "url": "https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.420.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Missouri", "id": "hb-495", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/missouri#hb-495", "date": "2025-08-28", "title": "Wrongful-conviction compensation no longer limited to DNA exonerations", "type": "HB 495 (2025), RSMo 650.058", "summary": "The act struck “solely as a result of DNA profiling analysis” from the eligibility rule. A qualifying finding of innocence may now come from “an evidentiary hearing and finding in a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding held pursuant to section 547.031.” The daily rate rises from $100 to $179 for each day of post-conviction incarceration, and the annual payment cap rises from $36,500 to $65,000. Nonmonetary relief, such as counseling, housing assistance and financial literacy help, may be awarded. The 2021 sentence exempting a person found actually innocent from costs of care under section 217.831 does not appear in the current 650.058.1; whether it was moved elsewhere was not checked.", "forPractitioners": "A client exonerated through habeas or a prosecutor’s motion to vacate, including in a non-DNA forensic case, may now qualify.", "sources": [ { "label": "RSMo 650.058", "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=650.058" }, { "label": "2021 version", "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/PageSelect.aspx?section=650.058&bid=50162" } ] }, { "state": "Minnesota", "id": "uav-2025", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/minnesota#uav-2025", "date": "2025-08-01", "title": "New warrantless drone uses; facial recognition limit unchanged", "type": "Laws 2025, ch. 35, art. 5, s. 23 (H.F. 2432)", "summary": "Minn. Stat. 626.19 subd. 3 now allows warrantless drone use “to document evidence that is at imminent risk of destruction” and “to facilitate the active search for a missing person.” Training flights over private areas are allowed with the occupant’s written consent. Subdivision 4(b), which bars drones with facial recognition unless a warrant expressly authorizes it, was not amended.", "forPractitioners": "Drone evidence gathered without a warrant must fit one of the listed uses.", "sources": [ { "label": "Laws 2025, ch. 35", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2025/0/35/" }, { "label": "Minn. Stat. 626.19", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/626.19" } ] }, { "state": "New Jersey", "id": "c1-kit-tracking", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/new-jersey#c1-kit-tracking", "date": "2025-08-01", "title": "Statewide online tracking system for sexual assault kits", "type": "P.L.2025, c.1 (S715), N.J.S.A. 52:17B-245.1", "summary": "The Attorney General must set up, by guideline or directive, a statewide internet-based system. Victims, police, health care and lab staff, and others the Attorney General names can follow each kit from collection through transfer to police, lab submission and testing, to final disposition. The act sets no deadline for the system to be running and has no appropriation. Whether the system is operating could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026. The earlier law, P.L.2019, c.168, required only a survey of untested kits.", "forPractitioners": "Ask whether the kit in your case is in the tracking system and request its history.", "sources": [ { "label": "P.L.2025, c.1", "url": "https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2024/PL25/1_.HTM" } ] }, { "state": "Florida", "id": "device-warrants-2025", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/florida#device-warrants-2025", "date": "2025-07-01", "title": "45 days to return warrants for devices already held", "type": "Ch. 2025-176, s. 7 (CS/CS/CS/HB 1371)", "summary": "A warrant to search a computer or electronic device already in police possession had to be returned within 45 days, not the general 10 days (s. 933.05). The 2026 act replaced this rule.", "forPractitioners": "Check which return period applied on the date the warrant issued.", "sources": [ { "label": "Ch. 2025-176", "url": "https://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2025-176.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Florida", "id": "expedited-dna", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/florida#expedited-dna", "date": "2025-07-01", "title": "Grants for DNA testing at accredited private labs", "type": "Ch. 2025-141 (CS/HB 847)", "summary": "New s. 943.328 creates the Expedited DNA Testing Grant Program. Law enforcement agencies may use grants to pay private DNA labs when the needed technology is not available at state or local labs, or when expedited testing advances an investigation. The private lab must have been accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and the FBI Quality Assurance Standards for at least 5 years. Grantees must report results, including the lab report and turnaround time.", "forPractitioners": "Ask whether a private lab result was grant-funded and confirm its accreditation history.", "sources": [ { "label": "Ch. 2025-141", "url": "https://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2025-141.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Massachusetts", "id": "fgg-fy26", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/massachusetts#fgg-fy26", "date": "2025-07-01", "title": "One-year budget floor for genetic genealogy at the State Police lab", "type": "St. 2025, c. 9, sec. 2, item 8100-1004 (fiscal 2026 budget)", "summary": "The fiscal 2026 crime lab item required that “not less than $250,000 shall be expended for costs associated with forensic genetic genealogy DNA” to help solve violent crimes, identify unidentified remains, process sexual assault kits, and support cold cases. Any third-party testing lab had to be vetted and approved by the State Police crime lab. The fiscal 2027 item (St. 2026, c. 137) drops both the genetic genealogy language and the vetting rule, so neither applies now. The session law marks no governor reduction or veto for this item.", "forPractitioners": "No Massachusetts statute governs genetic genealogy; the vetting rule applied only in fiscal 2026.", "sources": [ { "label": "St. 2025, c. 9", "url": "https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2025/Chapter9" }, { "label": "St. 2026, c. 137", "url": "https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2026/Chapter137" } ] }, { "state": "Texas", "id": "sb-1723", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/texas#sb-1723", "date": "2025-06-20", "title": "Rapid DNA by authorized law enforcement agencies", "type": "SB 1723 (89th Leg.), ch. 853", "summary": "Lets the DPS director authorize law enforcement agencies to run rapid DNA analysis on specimens from arrestees and registrants and submit the results to the state DNA database (Gov’t Code 411.146(c-1), 411.147, 411.1471(d)(3), 411.1473(c)(3)). Rapid DNA is defined as processing a known reference or forensic sample in no more than 24 hours (411.141(13)), while the pilot defines it as a reference swab processed in no more than 2 hours without a crime lab (411.1465(a)). The director must set rapid DNA standards that meet or exceed the FBI Quality Assurance Standards (411.142(h)), and DPS may inspect authorized agencies (411.144(c)). DPS must run a two-county booking-station pilot starting by September 1, 2026, with a report due January 1, 2028. The act also allows FBI-approved personal information and criminal history in CODIS (411.143(e), (f)). The statute does not say whether a booking-station rapid DNA profile needs Commission accreditation under art. 38.35.", "forPractitioners": "In a case built on a booking-station rapid DNA hit, ask whether the agency was authorized and how it met the FBI standards.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 1723", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB01723F.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Colorado", "id": "sb25-304", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/colorado#sb25-304", "date": "2025-06-03", "title": "Sexual assault evidence review board, a 60-day lab target, and a wider DNA backlog dashboard", "type": "SB 25-304, session law ch. 414 (“Miranda Gordon Justice for Survivors Act of 2025”)", "summary": "The act creates the Colorado sexual assault forensic medical evidence review board in the Department of Law, chaired by the Attorney General or a designee (C.R.S. 24-31-1401). Members were to be appointed, and the board to convene, by August 1, 2025. Most members serve four-year terms. The board reviews protocols, training and laws on the response to sexual assault and makes recommendations. A preliminary report was due December 15, 2025, and only that duty is repealed, on June 30, 2027; a report is due every November 1 from 2026 with no end date. An accredited law enforcement crime lab must “endeavor, subject to available capacity, funding, and personnel” to analyze forensic medical evidence within 60 days (24-33.5-113(6)). Police must update victims every 90 days while results are outstanding, which they may do in batches in the first week of March, June, September and December (24-4.1-302.5). Section 5 widens the public dashboard created by SB 25-170 to cover the DNA evidence backlog generally, with 14 listed measures, still updated at least every 30 days (24-33.5-432(4)(c)). Section 4 makes the kit tracking reports under 24-33.5-113.5(4) semiannual and sends them to every legislator. The act appropriates $112,365 to the Department of Law for fiscal 2025–26, for 1.0 FTE.", "forPractitioners": "The 60-day target is a best-efforts duty, not an enforceable deadline; the dashboard gives current turnaround figures.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 25-304, final act", "url": "https://leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/85234/download" } ] }, { "state": "Colorado", "id": "hb25-1275", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/colorado#hb25-1275", "date": "2025-06-02", "title": "Forensic Science Integrity Act: misconduct reporting, notice, and a new-trial remedy", "type": "HB 25-1275, session law ch. 352, C.R.S. 16-12-301 to -312", "summary": "The act covers crime labs that are units or sections of law enforcement agencies, accredited or not, and excludes coroner labs. “Wrongful action” means knowing misconduct, such as mishandling evidence, misleading or false results, concealment or false testimony, or a “significant event,” a gross deviation from procedures, accreditation requirements or law that could substantially affect the lab’s integrity (16-12-303). Employees must report wrongful action within 7 days, and supervisors must tell the director within 72 hours (16-12-304). A director who receives a report on or after July 1, 2025 must investigate, finish within 91 days or notify every district attorney with cases the employee worked and update them every 35 days, and issue a final report (16-12-305). Investigations from July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2025 that led to criminal allegations or sustained internal findings needed final reports by September 1, 2025. District attorneys must notify defendants within 91 days of the initiation notice (16-12-306), and must notify victims in cases involving crimes listed in 24-4.1-302(1) (16-12-307). Defendants have a right to counsel and discovery. The post-conviction remedy, with its three-part materiality test and deadlines, is described under “Post-conviction forensic relief” above. A final report finding wrongful action is an open record, but the custodian may withhold it while a related criminal investigation or case against the employee is pending (24-72-303(4)(a.5)). The act applies to claims filed on or after June 2, 2025, whenever the misconduct occurred. It appropriates $140,443 to the Judicial Department for fiscal 2025–26.", "forPractitioners": "A notice under 16-12-306 starts the filing clock; calendar it on receipt.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 25-1275, final act", "url": "https://leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/84976/download" }, { "label": "Bill page", "url": "https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB25-1275" } ] }, { "state": "Colorado", "id": "sb25-143", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/colorado#sb25-143", "date": "2025-04-18", "title": "School facial recognition contracting ban made permanent, with exceptions", "type": "SB 25-143, session law ch. 86", "summary": "The act removes the July 1, 2025 repeal of the ban on schools contracting for facial recognition services. It adds exceptions for contracts in effect when the act became law, for curriculum uses, and for identifying a person who made an articulable and significant threat, a missing student believed to be on school grounds, or a person ordered to stay off school property. Biometric identifiers may not be processed without consent, schools must give notice, and districts must adopt policies naming who may use the systems for threat response. An aggrieved party may seek a restraining order or injunction.", "forPractitioners": "Police use stays under C.R.S. 24-18-307; this act governs only school systems, which may still feed a threat response.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 25-143", "url": "https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB25-143" } ] }, { "state": "Colorado", "id": "sb25-170", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/colorado#sb25-170", "date": "2025-03-26", "title": "Backlog money, outside-lab contracting, and a public dashboard after 2023 lab misconduct", "type": "SB 25-170, session law ch. 29, C.R.S. 24-33.5-432", "summary": "The act kept a $3,000,000 appropriation made in HB 24-1430 available to the Bureau until June 30, 2026, and required it to be used to prioritize and accelerate testing of the sexual assault kit backlog. The Bureau may contract with qualified outside labs for backlog testing and for DNA retesting of cases tied to “the bureau laboratory misconduct that was discovered in 2023.” The Department of Public Safety had to report progress to the Joint Budget Committee by April 15, 2025, send email updates to the General Assembly every 30 days from March 10, 2025 through June 30, 2026, and build a public dashboard updated at least every 30 days. The appropriation window and the email updates ended June 30, 2026. The dashboard duty has no end date, and SB 25-304 widened it.", "forPractitioners": "In a case the Bureau’s lab handled, ask whether it was among the cases retested after the 2023 misconduct.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 25-170, final act", "url": "https://leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/83212/download" } ] }, { "state": "California", "id": "ab-2521", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/california#ab-2521", "date": "2025-01-01", "title": "Who picks the lab for post-conviction DNA testing", "type": "AB 2521 (Stats. 2024, ch. 153)", "summary": "The lab for testing under Penal Code 1405 is now agreed between the movant and “the Attorney General or district attorney” in any case. Before, the district attorney agreed in noncapital cases and the Attorney General in capital cases. The rest of 1405 changed only to gender-neutral pronouns. The act also lets the prosecuting agency, not only the Attorney General, see confidential defense funding records on appeal or collateral review (Penal Code 987.9).", "forPractitioners": "The testing standards and the lab quality rule did not change.", "sources": [ { "label": "AB 2521", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2521" } ] }, { "state": "California", "id": "ab-3042", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/california#ab-3042", "date": "2025-01-01", "title": "County DNA Identification Fund deposits extended to January 1, 2028", "type": "AB 3042 (Stats. 2024, ch. 428)", "summary": "Government Code 76104.6 funds county DNA Identification Funds through a Proposition 69 penalty assessment. Deposits could run through the 20th year after first collection. AB 3042 extends them to January 1, 2028, or longer if needed for lease or leaseback payments.", "forPractitioners": "This county DNA funding ends January 1, 2028 unless it is extended again.", "sources": [ { "label": "AB 3042", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB3042" } ] }, { "state": "Illinois", "id": "pa-103-792", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/illinois#pa-103-792", "date": "2025-01-01", "title": "Crime victims’ DNA kept out of DNA databases", "type": "P.A. 103-792 (HB 1168)", "summary": "New 725 ILCS 120/4(a)(1.6) says that when a person’s DNA profile is collected because they are a crime victim, that profile “shall not be entered into any DNA database.” Exceptions are Section 9.5 of the Criminal Identification Act and Section 3-3013 of the Counties Code. The act defines a DNA database as a collection of profiles built to search records against each other to develop investigative leads. It does not override FBI rules for CODIS and the national index.", "forPractitioners": "Ask whether any victim reference profile was searched or retained in a lab or local database.", "sources": [ { "label": "P.A. 103-792", "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/ftp/Public%20Acts/103/103-0792.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Maryland", "id": "pcdna-rules", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/maryland#pcdna-rules", "date": "2025-01-01", "title": "Post-conviction DNA procedure: a right to respond before the court rules", "type": "Supreme Court of Maryland Rules Order on the 223rd Report, Rules 4-707 to 4-709", "summary": "The order rescinds Rule 4-708 and amends Rules 4-707 and 4-709. The court may no longer deny a petition on the State’s answer alone. The petitioner may respond within 60 days after service of the answer; the 60 days used to run from the later of service or appointment of counsel. The response may challenge the answer, ask for a search of other agencies’ databases or logs, and amend the petition. The court may not rule before a response is filed or the 60 days run out (4-707(b)). Rule 4-709 now decides whether a hearing is needed “from the petition, answer, and any response.” The changes apply to actions begun on or after January 1, 2025 and, where practicable, to pending actions.", "forPractitioners": "Count the 60 days from service of the State’s answer, not from appointment of counsel.", "sources": [ { "label": "Rules Order, 223rd Report", "url": "http://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules/order/ro223rd.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "New Jersey", "id": "c59-victim-dna", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/new-jersey#c59-victim-dna", "date": "2025-01-01", "title": "Sexual assault victims may learn about DNA profiles, data bank entry and matches", "type": "P.L.2024, c.59 (S1017), N.J.S.A. 52:4B-60.2a", "summary": "New section 52:4B-60.2a gives a victim the right to be told whether an assailant DNA profile was obtained, whether it was entered into any data bank, whether there is a match, and when evidence went to a lab and was compared, with the results. The match and comparison rights do not apply if disclosure “would impede or compromise an ongoing investigation.” On request, the agency must give the status of evidence processing. Failure to notify “shall not be the basis for setting aside the conviction or sentence.” The 5-year retention of forensic medical evidence and the right to status on request in 52:4B-60.2(c)(6) date from P.L.2019, c.103; this act only added a cross-reference to the new section.", "forPractitioners": "A notice failure under this section does not support relief from a conviction.", "sources": [ { "label": "P.L.2024, c.59", "url": "https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2024/PL24/59_.HTM" }, { "label": "P.L.2019, c.103", "url": "https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2018/PL19/103_.HTM" } ] }, { "state": "North Carolina", "id": "school-frt", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/north-carolina#school-frt", "date": "2024-12-11", "title": "School safety pilot must include facial recognition", "type": "S.L. 2024-57 (S.B. 382), s. 3J.12, amending S.L. 2023-134, s. 7.36(h)", "summary": "An AI school safety pilot already existed under S.L. 2023-134, with directed grants to New Hanover County and Davidson County schools. The 2024 act added a list of required capabilities, including “Facial Recognition” and “Forensic Face Search,” required both participating school units to contract with the same vendor, and changed the system from access controls and intercoms to cameras and video management systems.", "forPractitioners": "This is not a rule on police use and sets no limits on facial recognition. North Carolina has no statute regulating police facial recognition.", "sources": [ { "label": "S.L. 2024-57", "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2023-2024/SL2024-57.html" } ] }, { "state": "New York", "id": "clean-slate-dna", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/new-york#clean-slate-dna", "date": "2024-11-16", "title": "Sealed convictions do not remove DNA from the databank", "type": "Chapter 631 of the Laws of 2023 (Clean Slate Act)", "summary": "The Clean Slate Act added CPL 160.57, which automatically seals eligible convictions after set waiting periods. It states that nothing in the section requires sealing or destroying DNA information kept in the state DNA databank under Executive Law article 49-B for a person whose conviction is sealed.", "forPractitioners": "A databank hit can still involve a person whose conviction has been sealed.", "sources": [ { "label": "CPL 160.57", "url": "https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/160.57" }, { "label": "A1029-C", "url": "https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A01029&term=2023&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Text=Y" } ] }, { "state": "Oklahoma", "id": "rapid-dna", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/oklahoma#rapid-dna", "date": "2024-11-01", "title": "Statewide rapid DNA program for crime scene samples", "type": "Laws 2024, c. 219, sec. 1 (HB 3568)", "summary": "New 74 O.S. 150.27(D) says the OSBI “shall promulgate necessary policies, procedures, and forms for participation in a rapid DNA investigative lead program,” a statewide program for law enforcement agencies covering the collection and processing of crime scene samples with rapid DNA instruments, including training and maintenance. Rapid DNA for booking samples dates from 2019. The act has no appropriation and sets no admissibility or accreditation rules.", "forPractitioners": "In a case with a rapid DNA lead from a crime scene, ask for the OSBI policies and the agency’s training records.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 3568", "url": "https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2023-24%20ENR/HB/HB3568%20ENR.PDF" } ] }, { "state": "Oklahoma", "id": "exoneration-orders", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/oklahoma#exoneration-orders", "date": "2024-11-01", "title": "DNA exoneration orders sent to the OSBI", "type": "Laws 2024, c. 259, sec. 3 (SB 1770)", "summary": "New 22 O.S. 1373.5(B): when a court vacates a conviction and dismisses with prejudice after DNA testing, a copy of the order showing the person “has been exonerated through DNA testing” goes to the OSBI. The remedies in 1373.5(A) did not change.", "forPractitioners": "After a DNA exoneration, confirm the OSBI received the order so criminal history records are corrected.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 1770", "url": "https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2023-24%20ENR/SB/SB1770%20ENR.PDF" } ] }, { "state": "Pennsylvania", "id": "act-122", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/pennsylvania#act-122", "date": "2024-10-29", "title": "Statewide tracking system for sexual assault kits", "type": "Act 122 of 2024 (SB 920), P.L. 1081", "summary": "The act amends the Sexual Assault Testing and Evidence Collection Act. New section 3.1 requires the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, with the State Police, to set up a statewide, web-based kit tracking system within one year. Health care facilities, police, the State Police and labs must all take part. The system records collection, notice to police, police possession, lab submission, lab receipt, completed analysis and destruction. Its entries are not an official status and “shall not be admissible to challenge the chain of custody of evidence in a criminal proceeding” (3.1(g)). The commission “may” apply for federal funding; the act has no appropriation. Victims gain rights to notice within 24 hours of a system breach in which the commission believes the status of their kit was accessed, to further preservation of the kit on written request, and to notice of the system. A Crime Victims Act filing waiver applies when a delay in kit testing or DNA matching caused a late claim (effective in 60 days). The State Police annual report must add system data (effective in 18 months) and an evaluation of bringing older untested kits into the system, a duty that took effect in one year and expires three years later. Whether the system is operating could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026.", "forPractitioners": "Tracking-system entries cannot be used to attack chain of custody; use the lab and police records instead.", "sources": [ { "label": "Act 122 of 2024", "url": "https://www.palegis.us/statutes/unconsolidated/law-information/view-statute?txtType=PDF&SessYr=2024&ActNum=0122.&SessInd=0" } ] }, { "state": "Florida", "id": "kit-retention", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/florida#kit-retention", "date": "2024-10-01", "title": "Unreported sexual assault kits kept 50 years", "type": "Ch. 2024-169 (CS/CS/CS/SB 764)", "summary": "Section 943.326(3) now requires kits from victims who do not report to be kept at least 50 years. The collecting medical facility or certified rape crisis center must transfer them to FDLE within 30 days. Kits that are reported, or for which testing is requested, still need the prosecuting agency’s approval before destruction (943.326(3)(a)). FDLE approval applies only to a kit first held under the 50-year rule whose victim later reports or asks for testing after the s. 775.15 limitations period has run (943.326(3)(b)2.).", "forPractitioners": "Before 2024, kits could be destroyed once the prosecutor approved; check which rule applied to an older kit.", "sources": [ { "label": "Ch. 2024-169", "url": "https://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2024-169.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Maryland", "id": "frt-2024", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/maryland#frt-2024", "date": "2024-10-01", "title": "Facial recognition statute: lead-only use, verification, and suppression", "type": "2024 Md. Laws chs. 808 and 809 (SB 182 / HB 338), Crim. Proc. 2-501 to 2-510", "summary": "The new subtitle sets the limits described above: evidentiary limits (2-502); permitted crimes, banned uses, database limits and independent verification (2-503(a)); anti-profiling rules (2-503(b)); and exclusion of results obtained in violation and evidence derived from them (2-503(c)). Each system used, the databases searched and the results that led to further action must be disclosed in discovery. Agencies must name an administrator, audit every year, train under a state program, follow a State Police model policy, and publish a use policy and annual reports. Identifying missing, deceased or incapacitated people, redaction, and security systems are carved out. A person may sue to compel compliance (2-509).", "forPractitioners": "Ask in discovery for every facial recognition search in the case; results obtained in violation can be suppressed.", "sources": [ { "label": "2024 Md. Laws ch. 808", "url": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_808_sb0182e.pdf" }, { "label": "ch. 809", "url": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_809_hb0338e.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Maryland", "id": "fgg-deceased-missing", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/maryland#fgg-deceased-missing", "date": "2024-10-01", "title": "Genetic genealogy rules do not apply to identifying the dead and missing", "type": "2024 Md. Laws chs. 830 and 831 (HB 476 / SB 549), Crim. Proc. 17-101.1", "summary": "Title 17, which requires judicial authorization, licensed labs and genealogists, and other safeguards, “does not apply to FGGS conducted solely for the purpose of identifying an individual who is: (1) deceased; or (2) the subject of a missing person report filed with a law enforcement agency in the State and whose whereabouts are unknown.” The chapter law shows an under-18 limit struck in passage, so the exemption has no age limit.", "forPractitioners": "Searches to identify a criminal suspect still need judicial authorization under Title 17.", "sources": [ { "label": "2024 Md. Laws ch. 830", "url": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_830_hb0476t.pdf" }, { "label": "Crim. Proc. 17-101.1", "url": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcp§ion=17-101.1&enactments=false" } ] }, { "state": "Michigan", "id": "pa-302", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/michigan#pa-302", "date": "2024-10-01", "title": "No DNA assessment for juveniles", "type": "2023 PA 302 (SB 429)", "summary": "MCL 28.176(5) now says the $60 DNA assessment does not apply to a juvenile, or the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian, under family division jurisdiction. The other changes are style only. Collection of juvenile DNA is unchanged.", "forPractitioners": "The fee is gone, but juvenile DNA collection and retention rules are not.", "sources": [ { "label": "2023 PA 302", "url": "https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA-0302.pdf" }, { "label": "MCL 28.176", "url": "https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-28-176" } ] }, { "state": "Massachusetts", "id": "nibin", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/massachusetts#nibin", "date": "2024-10", "title": "Casings from traced crime guns go into the national ballistics network", "type": "St. 2024, c. 135, sec. 75 (H.4885), as affected by St. 2024, c. 206, sec. 51", "summary": "The act rewrote G.L. c. 140, sec. 131Q. New subsection (c) says “A cartridge casing associated with a firearm reported for tracing under subsection (a) shall be submitted for inclusion in the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.” Section 159 of the act first delayed section 75 by 18 months. St. 2024, c. 206, sec. 51, an emergency law approved September 16, 2024, rewrote section 159 to delay sections 38 and 74 instead, so section 75 took effect with the rest of the act. The act took effect in October 2024: 90 days after approval was October 23, 2024, though a later emergency declaration by the governor may have set an earlier October date; the act’s exact effective date could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026. Section 131Q(a) and (b) also cover tracing of any firearm used in a criminal act, including suicide, with the data sent to ATF; that wording is not in the 2014 version, but versions between 2014 and 2024 were not checked. Separately, St. 2024, c. 139 set aside at least $250,000 for the Worcester police department to buy equipment to access the network.", "forPractitioners": "In a case with a traced gun, ask whether the casings were entered in the network and for any resulting leads.", "sources": [ { "label": "St. 2024, c. 135", "url": "https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2024/Chapter135" }, { "label": "St. 2024, c. 206", "url": "https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2024/Chapter206" }, { "label": "St. 2024, c. 139", "url": "https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2024/Chapter139" } ] }, { "state": "Missouri", "id": "sb-754", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/missouri#sb-754", "date": "2024-08-28", "title": "Motions to vacate go where charges were filed; a conviction review unit is authorized", "type": "SB 754 (2024), RSMo 547.031 and new 547.500", "summary": "Under 547.031.1, the prosecutor who may file, and the court that hears, a motion to vacate are now those in the jurisdiction “in which charges were filed,” not where the person was convicted. Nothing else in the section changed. New 547.500 says the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services “may establish” a conviction review unit to investigate claims of actual innocence, including from people who pleaded guilty. If set up, the unit would have two experienced attorneys, an investigator, a paralegal and administrative staff, and the office’s executive director sits on it as an ex officio member. Applications must be sworn, fees must be waived for indigent applicants, and an application must rest on “newly discovered and reliable evidence of actual innocence not presented at a trial,” and that evidence must establish actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. The prosecuting office “is not required to accept or follow” the unit’s findings, and a prosecutor may still file a 547.031 motion before the review ends (547.500.8). Unit records are closed; only its findings and recommendations become open, after the prosecutor declines to file a 547.031 motion or those proceedings end (547.500.7).", "forPractitioners": "After a change of venue, a motion to vacate belongs to the prosecutor and court where charges were filed. No source shows the review unit has been set up or funded.", "sources": [ { "label": "RSMo 547.031", "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=547.031" }, { "label": "RSMo 547.500", "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=547.500" } ] }, { "state": "Colorado", "id": "hb24-1100", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/colorado#hb24-1100", "date": "2024-08-07", "title": "Coroners in large counties must hold a death investigation credential", "type": "HB 24-1100, session law ch. 62", "summary": "A coroner of a county over 150,000 people elected on or after November 5, 2024 must be a death investigator certified by the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators, or a forensic pathologist certified by the American Board of Pathology, in good standing. SB 26-105 later raised the threshold to 300,000.", "forPractitioners": "This is a credential for an elected office, not a license for forensic analysts.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 24-1100", "url": "https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB24-1100" } ] }, { "state": "Minnesota", "id": "juvenile-dna", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/minnesota#juvenile-dna", "date": "2024-08-01", "title": "DNA from a minor needs consent, a court order, or a warrant", "type": "Laws 2024, ch. 123, art. 4, s. 4 (H.F. 5216)", "summary": "New Minn. Stat. 260B.009 says a biological specimen for DNA analysis “must not be taken from a minor without the consent of the minor’s parent or custodian, a court order, or a warrant.” A minor whose specimen was taken in violation may move to suppress the results as evidence and to have the specimen destroyed.", "forPractitioners": "In a juvenile case, ask how the DNA was obtained and move to suppress if none of the three applied.", "sources": [ { "label": "Minn. Stat. 260B.009", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/260B.009" }, { "label": "Laws 2024, ch. 123", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2024/0/Session+Law/Chapter/123/" } ] }, { "state": "Minnesota", "id": "pc-dna", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/minnesota#pc-dna", "date": "2024-08-01", "title": "Probable-cause DNA collection removed from statute", "type": "Laws 2024, ch. 123, art. 4, s. 8 (H.F. 5216)", "summary": "The act deleted the language in 299C.105 subd. 1 that covered people who had a judicial probable cause determination on a listed charge, and the matching juvenile language. Collection under the section now follows conviction or adjudication only. A 2006 Court of Appeals decision, In re Welfare of C.T.L., 722 N.W.2d 484, is reported to have held the probable-cause clauses unconstitutional, which would make this a conforming change; that decision could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026.", "forPractitioners": "A profile taken on probable cause alone has no basis in the current statute.", "sources": [ { "label": "Laws 2024, ch. 123", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2024/0/Session+Law/Chapter/123/" }, { "label": "Minn. Stat. 299C.105", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/299C.105" } ] }, { "state": "Minnesota", "id": "time-bar", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/minnesota#time-bar", "date": "2024-08-01", "title": "New scientific evidence no longer must prove innocence to beat the time bar", "type": "Laws 2024, ch. 123, art. 4, ss. 9 and 10 (H.F. 5216)", "summary": "Under 590.01 subd. 4(b)(2), newly discovered evidence, including scientific evidence, must now provide “facts necessary to sustain one or more legally cognizable claims for postconviction relief.” It must still have been undiscoverable with due diligence within two years, and it may not be cumulative or for impeachment. The act deleted the rule that the evidence establish the petitioner’s innocence by a clear and convincing standard. The State’s time to respond under 590.03 went from 20 to 45 days.", "forPractitioners": "A late claim based on a discredited method no longer has to prove innocence to get past the time bar, but it must be filed within two years of when the claim arose.", "sources": [ { "label": "Laws 2024, ch. 123", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2024/0/Session+Law/Chapter/123/" }, { "label": "Minn. Stat. 590.01", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/590.01" } ] }, { "state": "Oklahoma", "id": "da-vacate", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/oklahoma#da-vacate", "date": "2024-08", "title": "District attorneys may move to vacate wrongful convictions at any time", "type": "Laws 2024, c. 331, sec. 6 (SB 1835)", "summary": "New 22 O.S. 1381 says that, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law concerning postconviction relief,” the district attorney of the convicting county may move to vacate or set aside a conviction “at any time if clear and convincing evidence exists establishing that the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.” The act has no effective-date section, so it took effect 90 days after the 2024 session adjourned, in August 2024; the exact day could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026.", "forPractitioners": "Only the district attorney can file this motion. New forensic evidence of innocence can be taken to the prosecutor without the usual post-conviction time bars.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 1835", "url": "https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2023-24%20ENR/SB/SB1835%20ENR.PDF" } ] }, { "state": "Florida", "id": "figg-grants", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/florida#figg-grants", "date": "2024-07-01", "title": "Grants for forensic investigative genetic genealogy", "type": "Ch. 2024-113 (CS/SB 678)", "summary": "New s. 943.327 defines forensic investigative genetic genealogy and creates an FDLE grant program for law enforcement agencies and medical examiners to use it on violent crimes and unidentified remains. Grants may fund analysis of DNA samples “collected under applicable legal authority.” Methods must follow FDLE rule and be compatible with multiple genealogy databases open to law enforcement use. Grantees must report results within 1 year. Section 2 of the act appropriated $500,000 in nonrecurring general revenue for fiscal 2024–25.", "forPractitioners": "The statute sets no warrant or consent standard specific to genetic genealogy.", "sources": [ { "label": "Ch. 2024-113", "url": "https://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2024-113.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Illinois", "id": "pa-103-609", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/illinois#pa-103-609", "date": "2024-07-01", "title": "Commission duties tied to ISO 17025 accreditation; State Police examine digital evidence", "type": "P.A. 103-609 (HB 5495)", "summary": "The act inserts “ISO 17025 accredited” into 2605-615 in three places: the Commission’s review of non-conformities, the lab director seats, and the annual duty to report non-conformities. It also adds “and examine digital evidence” to the duties of the State Police Division of Forensic Services (2605-40).", "forPractitioners": "Publicly funded labs that are not accredited no longer report non-conformities to the Commission.", "sources": [ { "label": "P.A. 103-609", "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/PublicActs/103/103-0609.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Ohio", "id": "evid-r-702", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/ohio#evid-r-702", "date": "2024-07-01", "title": "Rule 702 now matches the 2023 federal rule", "type": "Ohio Evid.R. 702 (amended by the Supreme Court of Ohio)", "summary": "The proponent must now show the court “that it is more likely than not” that each requirement is met. Division (C) adds that “the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Before the change, the rule read “A witness may testify as an expert if all of the following apply.” The Staff Note says the amendment “adopts 2023 changes to Fed. R. Evid. 702.”", "forPractitioners": "Challenge how a forensic method was applied in the case, not only whether the method is valid; the proponent carries the burden on each part.", "sources": [ { "label": "Ohio Rules of Evidence", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/docs/LegalResources/Rules/evidence/evidence.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Virginia", "id": "hb-898", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/virginia#hb-898", "date": "2024-07-01", "title": "DNA notice, data bank reports, and identity sharing changed", "type": "HB 898 (2024 Acts ch. 210)", "summary": "The 19.2-270.5 DNA notice no longer must include the profiles; parties may get the underlying profiles under 19.2-187.2, with a continuance. The Department’s data bank report no longer includes the profile and identifying information (19.2-310.4), and the Department must give agencies taking part in the national DNA index the identifying information for confirmed candidate matches (19.2-310.5). Defense-requested analyses require that the Department have a method to perform them (9.1-1104). A signature on an evidence submission receipt, including an electronic one, is prima facie evidence that the lab properly received the material (19.2-187.01). The Committee’s lab director seat no longer must be filled from in state (9.1-1111).", "forPractitioners": "Request the underlying DNA profiles under 19.2-187.2; the notice alone no longer includes them.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 898", "url": "https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20241/HB898/text/CHAP0210" }, { "label": "Va. Code 19.2-270.5", "url": "https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/19.2-270.5/" } ] }, { "state": "Virginia", "id": "hb-1496", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/virginia#hb-1496", "date": "2024-07-01", "title": "Police must report surveillance technology each year", "type": "HB 1496 (2024 Acts ch. 614); amended by 2025 Acts ch. 420", "summary": "State and local law enforcement agencies and sheriff’s departments must report to the Department of Criminal Justice Services by November 1 each year the surveillance technologies they used, accessed, or procured in the prior fiscal year (Va. Code 9.1-116.10). The listed examples include facial, voice, iris, and gait recognition software and mobile DNA capture technology.", "forPractitioners": "The annual reports can show whether an agency had biometric or mobile DNA tools.", "sources": [ { "label": "Va. Code 9.1-116.10", "url": "https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/9.1-116.10/" }, { "label": "HB 1496", "url": "https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20241/HB1496" } ] }, { "state": "Colorado", "id": "hb24-1468", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/colorado#hb24-1468", "date": "2024-06-06", "title": "Facial recognition task force recast as an artificial intelligence task force", "type": "HB 24-1468, session law ch. 467", "summary": "The task force created by SB 22-113 to consider facial recognition became a 26-member artificial intelligence impact task force, with 4 legislators. Its remit now covers AI systems, automated decision systems and biometric technology, including recommendations on facial recognition. Its report was due February 1, 2025, and the task force is repealed September 1, 2027. The operative agency rules in C.R.S. 24-18-301 to -309 did not change.", "forPractitioners": "The rules on police facial recognition are unchanged; this is a temporary advisory body.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 24-1468", "url": "https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB24-1468" } ] }, { "state": "Minnesota", "id": "dvs-tsa", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/minnesota#dvs-tsa", "date": "2024-05-16", "title": "No facial recognition in license data checks for TSA Registered Traveler", "type": "Laws 2024, ch. 104, art. 1, s. 69 (H.F. 3436)", "summary": "An amendment to 171.12 subd. 7b lets the commissioner use noncompliant licenses and ID cards to verify identity for TSA Registered Traveler participants, limited to listed data and credential security features, “which does not include facial recognition.”", "forPractitioners": "Narrow; this is not a rule on police use.", "sources": [ { "label": "Laws 2024, ch. 104", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2024/0/104/" } ] }, { "state": "Georgia", "id": "hb-1105", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/georgia#hb-1105", "date": "2024-05-01", "title": "DNA taken from people convicted of a felony who are subject to an immigration detainer", "type": "HB 1105 (2024), Act 505, sec. 13", "summary": "The act amends O.C.G.A. 35-3-160(b)(1) to add (C): a DNA sample must be taken from anyone convicted of a felony who is subject to an immigration detainer notice under 42-4-16. The detention facility or supervising entity sends the sample to the GBI Division of Forensic Sciences, and the profile goes into the DNA data bank. People convicted of a felony who were incarcerated or supervised were already covered. The new clause reaches detainer cases whatever their supervision status. It does not add arrestees, and misdemeanors are still excluded. Section 14(a) made the act effective on approval; only section 10, which is not the DNA section, waited until December 31, 2024.", "forPractitioners": "A DNA profile from a detainer case may now be in the state data bank even if the person was never incarcerated or supervised for the felony.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 1105, 2023–24 session", "url": "https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/all" } ] }, { "state": "Washington", "id": "fgg-remains", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/washington#fgg-remains", "date": "2024-03-29", "title": "One-year money for genetic genealogy on unidentified remains", "type": "2024 c 376 s 402(13) (ESSB 5950, 2024 supplemental budget)", "summary": "The budget gave the State Patrol $500,000 in fiscal 2025 “provided solely for financial assistance to local jurisdictions to conduct DNA testing for unidentified remains, and for those remains that failed to yield a CODIS match, for forensic genetic genealogy DNA testing.” It defined that testing as at least 100,000 markers, compatible with genealogy databases whose users consented to law enforcement use, and said the genealogy records of the remains are confidential to the fullest extent allowed. The 2025–27 budget (2025 c 424 s 1402) reprinted the subsection unchanged; the 2026 supplemental (2026 c 268) has no such item.", "forPractitioners": "This covered unidentified remains only, not suspect searches. No Washington statute governs genetic genealogy.", "sources": [ { "label": "2024 c 376", "url": "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5950-S.SL.htm" }, { "label": "2025 c 424", "url": "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Htm/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5167-S.SL.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Washington", "id": "yakima-lab", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/washington#yakima-lab", "date": "2024-03-29", "title": "Grant to the Yakima Valley crime lab, including a rapid DNA work group", "type": "2024 c 376 s 127(100) (ESSB 5950)", "summary": "The budget gave the Department of Commerce $395,000 in fiscal 2025, “provided solely” for a grant to the Yakima Valley local crime lab for firearm crime analysis and data collection, fentanyl death investigations, “and to support the rapid DNA work group.”", "forPractitioners": "One-time money; it set no rules for rapid DNA, and no Washington statute does.", "sources": [ { "label": "2024 c 376", "url": "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5950-S.SL.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Florida", "id": "inmate-dna", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/florida#inmate-dna", "date": "2024-03-22", "title": "One-time DNA collection from state prison inmates", "type": "Ch. 2024-31 (HB 533)", "summary": "Every Department of Corrections inmate who had not given a DNA sample under s. 943.325 had to give one by September 30, 2024. The act is not codified.", "forPractitioners": "Expect database hits from inmates who were never sampled before 2024.", "sources": [ { "label": "Ch. 2024-31", "url": "https://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2024-031.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Arizona", "id": "rule-702", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/arizona#rule-702", "date": "2024-01-01", "title": "Rule 702 amended to match the 2023 federal change", "type": "Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004, Ariz. R. Evid. 702", "summary": "The opening clause now requires that “the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that” elements (a) to (d) are met. Element (d) changed from “the expert has reliably applied” to “the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of” the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Elements (a) to (c) are unchanged. The Comment to the 2024 amendment says the change conforms to Federal Rule 702 as amended December 1, 2023, “to clarify the standard of proof that the proponent of expert testimony must satisfy as well as to address the issue of expert overstatement.” It adds that “cold” educative experts are still permitted, citing State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590 (2014).", "forPractitioners": "The proponent bears a preponderance burden on each element, and an opinion that claims more than the method supports can be challenged under (d).", "sources": [ { "label": "Order R-23-0004", "url": "https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/20/2023%20Rules/R-23-0004%20Final%20Rules%20Order.PDF" } ] }, { "state": "California", "id": "sb-97", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/california#sb-97", "date": "2024-01-01", "title": "Easier habeas standards for new evidence and expert disputes", "type": "SB 97 (Stats. 2023, ch. 381)", "summary": "New evidence under Penal Code 1473(b)(1)(C) no longer must have been undiscoverable with due diligence. It must be new, presented without substantial delay, admissible, and material and credible enough that it more likely than not would have changed the outcome. The expert testimony ground in 1473(b)(1)(D) now reaches testimony “at trial or a hearing” that “more likely than not affected the outcome of the case.” Before, the testimony had to have been introduced at trial and contributed to the conviction. The act also allows remote appearance and presumes relief should be granted when the district attorney or Attorney General concedes.", "forPractitioners": "A changed-science claim can now attack expert testimony from a hearing, not only from trial.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 97", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB97" }, { "label": "Penal Code 1473", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=1473." } ] }, { "state": "California", "id": "sb-78", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/california#sb-78", "date": "2024-01-01", "title": "Compensation finding after habeas relief", "type": "SB 78 (Stats. 2023, ch. 702)", "summary": "When specified habeas writs are granted and the charges are dismissed or the person is acquitted on retrial, the person may move for a finding that they are entitled to compensation (Penal Code 1485.55). The court must grant it unless the district attorney proves by clear and convincing evidence that the person committed the acts. The California Victim Compensation Board must approve payment if funds are available and appropriated. A district attorney must give the Attorney General at least 7 days’ notice before stipulating.", "forPractitioners": "After a forensic-based vacatur and dismissal, file for the 1485.55 finding.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 78", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB78" } ] }, { "state": "California", "id": "sb-464", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/california#sb-464", "date": "2024-01-01", "title": "New statewide audit of untested sexual assault kits", "type": "SB 464 (Stats. 2023, ch. 715)", "summary": "Law enforcement agencies, medical facilities, public crime labs, and other kit holders must audit untested sexual assault kits. By July 1, 2026, each agency and public crime lab had to create a record in the state’s SAFE-T database for every victim kit without completed DNA testing, and other holders had to report to the Department of Justice. The Department reports to the Legislature by July 1, 2027. Suspect kits are audited but kept out of SAFE-T. The act also let a victim ask that their kit not be tested, a right SB 733 later restructured.", "forPractitioners": "SAFE-T records can show how long a kit sat untested.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 464", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB464" } ] }, { "state": "Illinois", "id": "pa-103-34", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/illinois#pa-103-34", "date": "2024-01-01", "title": "Medical examiner or coroner seat on the Commission", "type": "P.A. 103-34 (HB 2412)", "summary": "Adds “one member who is a medical examiner or coroner” to the Forensic Science Commission (2605-615(c)). The act also lets the State Police employ forensic anthropologists (2605-200).", "forPractitioners": "A minor change to the Commission’s membership.", "sources": [ { "label": "P.A. 103-34", "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/PublicActs/103/103-0034.htm" } ] }, { "state": "New Jersey", "id": "olenowski-ii", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/new-jersey#olenowski-ii", "date": "2023-11-15", "title": "Drug recognition expert testimony admitted with limits; Daubert rulings reviewed fresh on appeal", "type": "State v. Olenowski, 255 N.J. 529 (2023) (Olenowski II)", "summary": "Appeals courts review trial-court Daubert reliability rulings in criminal cases de novo; other expert issues stay under abuse of discretion. Drug recognition expert testimony meets the standard with four safeguards. The expert may say only that findings are “consistent with” drug use. The testimony must be excluded if the State, without a persuasive reason, did not reasonably try to get a toxicology report. The defense must get a fair chance to impeach. Model jury instructions should be considered.", "forPractitioners": "On appeal, a Daubert ruling on a forensic method gets fresh review, not deference.", "sources": [ { "label": "State v. Olenowski", "url": "https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2023/a_56_18.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Arizona", "id": "sb-1055", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/arizona#sb-1055", "date": "2023-10-30", "title": "State forensics fund limited to accredited full-service crime labs", "type": "Laws 2023, ch. 186 (SB 1055), A.R.S. 41-1730", "summary": "The act struck the fixed shares of the DPS forensics fund: DPS kept 55 percent, and 22, 12, 7 and 4 percent went to the Phoenix, Tucson, Mesa and Scottsdale police departments. Money now goes each quarter to each “full-service crime laboratory,” in proportion to crimes reported in the areas each lab serves. The act also struck the old basis for adjusting shares and the requirement that lab directors agree on the formula. It relettered the lab definition from (E) to (F). The degreed forensic scientist and DEA registration requirements carried over. New are: operation by a state criminal justice agency as an option, a “full-time” scientist in place of a “regularly employed” one, accreditation to ILAC G19 and ISO/IEC 17025 or 17020 or field-specific standards ((F)(4)), and at least six listed disciplines, one of them DNA, digital forensics or drug toxicology ((F)(5)).", "forPractitioners": "An unaccredited lab may still work and testify; it only loses its share of this fund.", "sources": [ { "label": "Laws 2023, ch. 186", "url": "https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/1R/laws/0186.htm" }, { "label": "A.R.S. 41-1730", "url": "https://www.azleg.gov/ars/41/01730.htm" } ] }, { "state": "New York", "id": "stevens", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/new-york#stevens", "date": "2023-10-24", "title": "Court of Appeals upholds familial DNA searching", "type": "Matter of Stevens v New York State Div. of Criminal Justice Servs., 40 N.Y.3d 505", "summary": "Reversed the Appellate Division and dismissed the challenge, holding that the DNA Databank Act gave the Commission on Forensic Science and its DNA Subcommittee authority to adopt the familial DNA search regulations in 9 NYCRR 6192.1 and 6192.3.", "forPractitioners": "Familial search leads under Part 6192 rest on regulations the State’s highest court has upheld.", "sources": [ { "label": "Stevens, 2023 NY Slip Op 05351", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_05351.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Ohio", "id": "hb-33-kits", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/ohio#hb-33-kits", "date": "2023-10-03", "title": "Yearly sexual assault kit reports; victims may stop kit destruction", "type": "HB 33 (135th General Assembly, fiscal 2024–25 budget)", "summary": "New R.C. 2933.821 requires every governmental evidence-retention entity that receives, keeps or preserves kits to report to the Attorney General within 180 days and then every year. Reports cover tested and untested kits, dates received, submitted and tested, CODIS entry dates or why no profile was made, why kits went untested, kits held over 30 days, and kits destroyed and why. The Attorney General publishes a summary that names entities that did not report. New R.C. 109.68(D) gives a victim the right to ask for kit testing dates and results, whether a profile was obtained, and database match status; to get notice at least 60 days before destruction; and to ask that the kit be kept for up to 30 years. New 2933.82(B)(8)(b) lets that request override the 5-year destruction rule after a plea.", "forPractitioners": "Kit backlogs and destruction are now on the record each year; check the Attorney General summary for the agency in your case.", "sources": [ { "label": "R.C. 2933.821", "url": "https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2933.821" }, { "label": "R.C. 109.68", "url": "https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-109.68" }, { "label": "Bill status", "url": "https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/135/hb33/status" } ] }, { "state": "Colorado", "id": "hb23-1034", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/colorado#hb23-1034", "date": "2023-10-01", "title": "Post-conviction DNA testing opened to people out of custody, and testing made mandatory on a showing", "type": "HB 23-1034, session law ch. 15, C.R.S. 18-1-411 to -416", "summary": "Before the act, only an incarcerated person could apply, and only to show “actual innocence”; that definition was repealed. Now an “eligible person” may apply at any time: anyone convicted of, or found not guilty by reason of insanity of, a Colorado felony, including people in prison, on parole or probation, registered as sex offenders, or done with their sentence (18-1-411(3.3)). The court must order testing if it finds a reasonable probability the person would not have been convicted had favorable results been obtained at the original prosecution, finds by a preponderance that police collected and still hold testable biological evidence, and finds by a preponderance either that DNA results were not available before conviction, that previously tested evidence can now get more advanced, scientifically reliable testing likely to give more probative results, or that the person did not get testing for a listed reason (18-1-413(1)). A later petition on new grounds may be heard, if the petitioner meets due-diligence or no-prior-hearing conditions, for good cause or in the interests of justice (18-1-413(2)). If results are favorable, the court must hold a hearing within 30 days and enter an order within 30 days after it, which may vacate the conviction (18-1-416(1.5)).", "forPractitioners": "A client who has finished the sentence can now seek testing, including retesting with newer methods.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 23-1034, final act", "url": "https://leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/91417/download" } ] }, { "state": "Maryland", "id": "autopsy-corrections", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/maryland#autopsy-corrections", "date": "2023-10-01", "title": "Longer window to ask for corrections to autopsy findings", "type": "2023 Md. Laws ch. 296 (HB 863), Health-Gen. 5-310(d), now codified at 5-309(d)", "summary": "A person in interest may ask the medical examiner to correct findings and conclusions on the cause and manner of death recorded on a death certificate within 180 days after they are filed, up from 60 days. The right does not apply to a finding of homicide. A denial may be appealed to the Secretary of Health and heard as a contested case.", "forPractitioners": "Except in homicide findings, a family has 180 days from filing to seek a correction of cause or manner of death.", "sources": [ { "label": "2023 Md. Laws ch. 296", "url": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2023RS/Chapters_noln/CH_296_hb0863t.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "North Carolina", "id": "codis-notice", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/north-carolina#codis-notice", "date": "2023-10-01", "title": "Lab must tell the district attorney of every CODIS match", "type": "S.L. 2023-74 (H.B. 790), s. 3(a)", "summary": "New G.S. 15A-266.7(a)(3) says the State Crime Laboratory shall “Notify the office of the district attorney for all CODIS matches.” Who must give DNA did not change.", "forPractitioners": "Ask the prosecutor for the lab’s match notice in any case with a CODIS hit.", "sources": [ { "label": "S.L. 2023-74", "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2023-2024/SL2023-74.html" } ] }, { "state": "Texas", "id": "hb-3506", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/texas#hb-3506", "date": "2023-09-01", "title": "Elimination DNA kept out of CODIS and purged from lab databases", "type": "HB 3506 (88th Leg.), ch. 742", "summary": "Defines DNA quality assurance databases and elimination samples (art. 38.01 sec. 2) and requires Commission rules that keep lab quality assurance databases separate from CODIS, bar elimination profiles from any other database, bar outside access, and require removal within 3 months of analysis (sec. 4-e). Gov’t Code 411.1431 bars elimination samples from the state DNA database, and the act struck biological specimens of deceased crime victims from what the database may hold (411.142(g)). By December 1, 2023, the Commission had to require labs to remove elimination records held more than 3 months, and DPS had to remove elimination records from the state database.", "forPractitioners": "Purge elimination profiles from quality assurance databases within 3 months of analysis.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 3506", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB03506F.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Texas", "id": "sb-991", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/texas#sb-991", "date": "2023-09-01", "title": "Commission may discipline crime labs; statewide lab records portal", "type": "SB 991 (88th Leg.), ch. 1149; HB 3474 (88th Leg.), ch. 861", "summary": "Art. 38.01 sec. 4-c now lets the Commission discipline crime labs, not only license holders, for negligence, misconduct, or violations of the code of professional responsibility, by revoking, suspending, or refusing to renew accreditation, or by reprimand. Negligence and code violations were new grounds. HB 3474 made the same change to sec. 4-c. SB 991 also created a DPS portal for requesting and transferring crime lab records (Gov’t Code 411.161 to 411.164); lab participation is mandatory and enforceable by the Commission, and defense access runs through the prosecutor.", "forPractitioners": "Negligence alone can now cost a lab its accreditation.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 991", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SB00991F.htm" }, { "label": "HB 3474", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB03474F.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Texas", "id": "hb-3956", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/texas#hb-3956", "date": "2023-09-01", "title": "DNA taken at every felony arrest", "type": "HB 3956 (88th Leg.), ch. 543", "summary": "Strikes the list of 24 enumerated Penal Code felonies from Gov’t Code 411.1471(a)(1), so DNA is taken at booking for any felony arrest. Courts already had to notify DPS on acquittal or dismissal; now the court must also request expunction of the DNA record (411.151(a)(1)(B)) and notify the defendant or counsel. Before, the person had to send DPS a certified order. Expunction orders go to the DPS director.", "forPractitioners": "Expect far more arrestee profiles in CODIS, and check that expunctions follow acquittals and dismissals.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 3956", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB03956F.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Texas", "id": "hb-4628", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/texas#hb-4628", "date": "2023-09-01", "title": "Match follow-up deadlines in assault kits", "type": "HB 4628 (88th Leg.), ch. 884", "summary": "DPS already had to compare a sexual assault kit DNA profile with state databases and CODIS within 30 days after an accredited lab analyzes it and finishes quality review (Gov’t Code 420.043(a)); HB 4628 added a duty for the submitting lab to monitor its own database for resulting matches (420.043(a-1)). The submitting agency must answer lab requests about a match within 5 business days, and the agency must get written notice of case-to-case and verified offender matches within 60 business days after the lab is notified of the match (420.0431). Within 5 business days the agency must notify the survivor of the match or, if disclosure would interfere with the case, of the date it expects to disclose it (420.0432).", "forPractitioners": "Track the 30-day comparison and 60-business-day notice deadlines for each kit.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 4628", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB04628F.htm" }, { "label": "Gov’t Code chapter 420", "url": "https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.420.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Texas", "id": "sb-338", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/texas#sb-338", "date": "2023-09-01", "title": "Hypnotically induced statements inadmissible", "type": "SB 338 (88th Leg.), ch. 1028", "summary": "New art. 38.24 makes statements made during or after investigative hypnosis by a law enforcement agency, including identifications of the accused, inadmissible against the defendant at either phase of trial for the offense investigated. Physical evidence and testimony of a witness identified through the session that independently corroborates the offense remain admissible. It applies to proceedings that began on or after September 1, 2023.", "forPractitioners": "Do not rely on post-hypnosis recall from a witness in the case under investigation.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 338", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SB00338F.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Texas", "id": "sb-1518", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/texas#sb-1518", "date": "2023-09-01", "title": "DNA collected from registered terrorist offenders", "type": "SB 1518 (88th Leg.), ch. 935", "summary": "Creates a terrorist offender registry (Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 65) and extends DNA specimen collection under Gov’t Code 411.1473, which had covered only sex offender registrants, to people registered under chapter 65.", "forPractitioners": "Registry status under chapter 65 now triggers DNA collection.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 1518", "url": "https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SB01518F.htm" } ] }, { "state": "Minnesota", "id": "bca-advisory", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/minnesota#bca-advisory", "date": "2023-08-01", "title": "BCA advisory group to review audits, accreditation, and forensic technology", "type": "Laws 2023, ch. 52, art. 5, ss. 34 and 35 (S.F. 2909)", "summary": "New 299C.65 subd. 1a(d) gives the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Information and BCA Advisory Group the duty to review and advise the superintendent on audits, accreditation reports, and internal reviews of the bureau; on “emerging technologies in the law enforcement and forensic science fields”; and on privacy policies. Its biennial report must cover these reviews.", "forPractitioners": "The group’s reports may describe BCA lab audits and accreditation findings.", "sources": [ { "label": "Laws 2023, ch. 52", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/52/" }, { "label": "Minn. Stat. 299C.65", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/299C.65" } ] }, { "state": "Minnesota", "id": "kit-target", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/minnesota#kit-target", "date": "2023-08-01", "title": "90-day testing target for sexual assault kits", "type": "Laws 2023, ch. 52, art. 5, s. 31 (S.F. 2909)", "summary": "New 299C.106 subd. 3(c) and (d). From July 1, 2024, the receiving lab “must strive” to test kits within 90 days, give them priority with other violent crimes, update the tracking database, and tell the submitting agency about any kit not tested in 90 days, with an estimated completion time. The same act appropriated $4,500,000 in fiscal 2024 and $3,500,000 in fiscal 2025 to the BCA to cut turnaround times for forensic processing of evidence.", "forPractitioners": "The target is not a hard deadline, but late kits must generate a notice to the agency.", "sources": [ { "label": "Laws 2023, ch. 52", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/52/" }, { "label": "Minn. Stat. 299C.106", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/299C.106" } ] }, { "state": "Minnesota", "id": "mistaken-identity", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/minnesota#mistaken-identity", "date": "2023-08-01", "title": "Fingerprints and photos destroyed after mistaken-identity arrests", "type": "Laws 2023, ch. 52 (S.F. 2909), amending Minn. Stat. 299C.11 subd. 1", "summary": "The BCA or the arresting agency must destroy a person’s fingerprints, photographs, and other identification data, with all copies, without a petition, when the agency finds the arrest came from mistaken identity before charging, or when the prosecutor declines charges or a grand jury does not indict on that basis. The prosecutor must notify the BCA and the arresting agency. The subdivision covers identification data other than DNA.", "forPractitioners": "Confirm destruction for a client arrested by mistaken identity.", "sources": [ { "label": "Laws 2023, ch. 52", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/52/" } ] }, { "state": "Minnesota", "id": "carjacking-dna", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/minnesota#carjacking-dna", "date": "2023-08-01", "title": "Carjacking added to the DNA collection list", "type": "Laws 2023, ch. 52, art. 20, s. 13 (S.F. 2909)", "summary": "Adds carjacking under section 609.247 to the adult and juvenile offense lists in 299C.105 subd. 1.", "forPractitioners": "A conforming change after carjacking became its own crime.", "sources": [ { "label": "Laws 2023, ch. 52", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/52/" } ] }, { "state": "Washington", "id": "jail-dna", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/washington#jail-dna", "date": "2023-07-23", "title": "Jails must collect owed DNA before release", "type": "2023 c 197 s 7 (2SHB 1028)", "summary": "City and county jails must get owed DNA samples before release and adopt a policy to collect them as soon as practicable (RCW 43.43.754(5)(a)). If a person is released without giving one, the jail tells the court within 3 business days, and the court sets a compliance hearing within 10 days where the jail attends and collects the sample. The court may charge the jail fees and costs. State prisons and juvenile facilities have similar duties, and a 10-day compliance hearing applies at sentencing. The act removed the old order to report to the local police or sheriff to give a sample.", "forPractitioners": "A client released without giving a sample can expect a compliance hearing.", "sources": [ { "label": "2023 c 197", "url": "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1028-S2.SL.htm" }, { "label": "RCW 43.43.754", "url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.43.754" } ] }, { "state": "Washington", "id": "otc-kits", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/washington#otc-kits", "date": "2023-07-23", "title": "At-home sexual assault kits banned", "type": "2023 c 296 (HB 1564)", "summary": "New RCW 5.70.070 bars selling or offering a sexual assault kit marketed as over-the-counter, at-home, or self-collected, or in any way suggesting it can collect evidence other than by law enforcement or a health care provider. A violation is an unfair or deceptive act under the Consumer Protection Act.", "forPractitioners": "The ban reaches sellers, not survivors, and the section says nothing about whether evidence from such a kit is admissible.", "sources": [ { "label": "2023 c 296", "url": "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1564.SL.htm" }, { "label": "Chapter 5.70 RCW", "url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=5.70&full=true" } ] }, { "state": "North Carolina", "id": "commission-procedure", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/north-carolina#commission-procedure", "date": "2023-07-07", "title": "Innocence commission procedures rewritten", "type": "S.L. 2023-74 (H.B. 790), s. 1(a)", "summary": "The prehearing conference moved from at least 10 to at least 30 days before Commission proceedings. The district attorney and the claimant’s counsel get the entire case file at least 60 days before the hearing, with a continuing duty to disclose new evidence. The district attorney’s written statement is due 10 days before the hearing instead of 72 hours. A special prosecutor is appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, and only on credible evidence of misconduct by the sitting district attorney. The three-judge panel hearing now follows the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, with mutual discovery 10 days before and exclusion of undisclosed evidence absent good cause. Annual reports must show private donations. The Commission has since been renamed the Postconviction Review Commission.", "forPractitioners": "Forensic evidence offered at the three-judge panel must now meet the Rules of Evidence and be disclosed 10 days ahead.", "sources": [ { "label": "S.L. 2023-74", "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/2023-2024/SL2023-74.html" } ] }, { "state": "Florida", "id": "detainer-dna", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/florida#detainer-dna", "date": "2023-07-01", "title": "DNA taken from people held on immigration detainers", "type": "Ch. 2023-40, s. 18 (CS/CS/SB 1718)", "summary": "People in law enforcement custody who are subject to a federal immigration detainer are now qualifying offenders (s. 943.325(2)(g)2.d.). The sample is taken when the detainer is received, and the custodial agency must take it immediately and send it to FDLE in a timely manner.", "forPractitioners": "A database profile may come from detainer status, not an arrest or conviction.", "sources": [ { "label": "Ch. 2023-40", "url": "https://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2023-040.pdf" }, { "label": "s. 943.325", "url": "https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0943/Sections/0943.325.html" } ] }, { "state": "Florida", "id": "rapid-dna", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/florida#rapid-dna", "date": "2023-07-01", "title": "Rapid DNA grant program", "type": "Ch. 2023-234 (CS/HB 1105)", "summary": "New s. 943.324 directs FDLE to award any funds appropriated for the program each year to county jails or sheriffs’ offices to buy DNA testing machines and supplies for database samples under s. 943.325.", "forPractitioners": "The statute sets no operating or accreditation standards for these machines.", "sources": [ { "label": "Ch. 2023-234", "url": "https://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2023-234.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Florida", "id": "igg-records", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/florida#igg-records", "date": "2023-07-01", "title": "Genetic genealogy records closed to the public", "type": "Ch. 2023-235 (CS/HB 1327)", "summary": "New s. 119.071(2)(r) defines investigative genetic genealogy and makes its information and materials confidential and exempt from public records law. That includes SNP and whole-genome profiles and the identities of relatives found. It does not cover the donor of the perpetrator sample or witnesses. Agencies may share the records with other agencies and must disclose them under a court order for prosecution. The exemption reaches records held before July 1, 2023.", "forPractitioners": "The public records law closes genealogy records, and the statute requires disclosure under a court order for a prosecution. Defense counsel should seek that order or use criminal discovery.", "sources": [ { "label": "Ch. 2023-235", "url": "https://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2023-235.pdf" }, { "label": "s. 119.071", "url": "https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0119/Sections/0119.071.html" } ] }, { "state": "Maryland", "id": "ocme", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/maryland#ocme", "date": "2023-07-01", "title": "Office of the Chief Medical Examiner set up in the Department of Health", "type": "2023 Md. Laws ch. 268 (HB 977), Health-Gen. 5-301 to 5-312", "summary": "The act creates the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in the Maryland Department of Health. The Office must, “as allowed by staffing,” advance forensic science through medical education and research. The State Postmortem Examiners Commission becomes the Postmortem Examiners Advisory Committee, which advises the Secretary and the Office, and the Commission’s powers move to the Department and the Office. The Department and the Committee may not interfere with the Office’s clinical findings or conclusions on autopsies. Assistant medical examiners must now obtain board certification within their American Board of Pathology eligibility period, not within 3 years of appointment.", "forPractitioners": "Autopsy findings are protected by statute from interference by the Department and the Committee.", "sources": [ { "label": "2023 Md. Laws ch. 268", "url": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2023RS/Chapters_noln/CH_268_hb0977t.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Virginia", "id": "hb-2150", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/virginia#hb-2150", "date": "2023-07-01", "title": "Trace evidence kits for strangulation victims", "type": "HB 2150 (2023 Acts ch. 312)", "summary": "Adds trace evidence collection kits for strangulation victims, including anonymous kits for victims who do not report to police, to the evidence recovery kit provisions in Va. Code 19.2-11.5 to 19.2-11.9 and 19.2-11.12.", "forPractitioners": "Strangulation kits follow the same storage and anonymous-kit rules as physical evidence recovery kits.", "sources": [ { "label": "HB 2150", "url": "https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20231/HB2150/text/CHAP0312" }, { "label": "Va. Code 19.2-11.6", "url": "https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/19.2-11.6/" } ] }, { "state": "Washington", "id": "dna-fee", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/washington#dna-fee", "date": "2023-07-01", "title": "$100 DNA fee ends for new sentences", "type": "2023 c 449 s 4 (ESHB 1169)", "summary": "The act struck the rule that “every sentence” include a $100 DNA collection fee. RCW 43.43.7541 now covers only fees imposed before July 1, 2023, which the court “shall waive” on the offender’s motion. Section 3 also amended the DNA database account (RCW 43.43.7532).", "forPractitioners": "Move to waive any DNA fee imposed before July 1, 2023.", "sources": [ { "label": "2023 c 449", "url": "https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1169-S.SL.htm" }, { "label": "RCW 43.43.7541", "url": "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.43.7541" } ] }, { "state": "Maryland", "id": "abruquah", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/maryland#abruquah", "date": "2023-06-20", "title": "Firearms examiners may not give unqualified source opinions", "type": "Abruquah v. State, No. 10, Sept. Term 2022 (Supreme Court of Maryland)", "summary": "Applying Rochkind, the Court held that the examiner “should not have been permitted to offer an unqualified opinion that the crime scene bullets were fired from Mr. Abruquah’s gun.” The record showed that the method “can support reliable conclusions that patterns and markings on bullets are consistent or inconsistent with those on bullets fired from a particular firearm,” but not that it “can reliably support an unqualified conclusion that such bullets were fired from a particular firearm.” The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, so the Court reversed the ruling on the motion in limine, vacated the judgment, and remanded for a new trial. The Court did not hold firearms comparison evidence inadmissible altogether.", "forPractitioners": "Object to any firearms testimony that a bullet or casing came from a particular gun without qualification.", "sources": [ { "label": "Abruquah v. State", "url": "https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2023/10a22.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Illinois", "id": "pa-103-101", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/illinois#pa-103-101", "date": "2023-06-16", "title": "Facial recognition limited on police drones", "type": "P.A. 103-101 (HB 3902)", "summary": "New 725 ILCS 167/17 bars police from using facial recognition on a drone or running drone footage through facial recognition software. There are two exceptions: to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack that the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security finds credible, or on reasonable suspicion that swift action is needed to prevent imminent harm to life, a suspect’s escape, or destruction of evidence. The act also bars weapons on police drones and allows drones at special events, with limits.", "forPractitioners": "A drone-based facial recognition match needs one of the two exceptions on the record.", "sources": [ { "label": "P.A. 103-101", "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/PublicActs/103/103-0101.htm" }, { "label": "725 ILCS 167/17", "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/ftp/ILCS/Ch%200725/Act%200167/072501670K17.html" } ] }, { "state": "New Jersey", "id": "arteaga-frt", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/new-jersey#arteaga-frt", "date": "2023-06-07", "title": "Defense gets discovery on facial recognition used to identify the defendant", "type": "State v. Arteaga, No. A-3078-21 (App. Div.)", "summary": "On leave to appeal, the court reversed a Hudson County order denying discovery about the facial recognition technology used to produce a photo that identified the defendant. It remanded for an order “directing the State to provide the eleven remaining items of discovery requested by the defense.” The motion judge may enter protective orders, review materials in camera, and “hold a Daubert hearing if necessary.” It is a published Appellate Division ruling on facial recognition discovery. It does not bar the technology.", "forPractitioners": "When facial recognition led to an identification, request discovery on how the technology was used, citing Arteaga.", "sources": [ { "label": "State v. Arteaga", "url": "https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2023/a3078-21.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "Ohio", "id": "sb-288-kits", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/ohio#sb-288-kits", "date": "2023-04-04", "title": "Kit testing and retention duties extended to human trafficking cases", "type": "SB 288 (134th General Assembly), amending R.C. 2933.82", "summary": "R.C. 2933.82 now covers sexual assault kits secured in trafficking-in-persons cases under R.C. 2905.32. Agencies must keep the kits for the statutory periods, 30 years if the case is unsolved. They had to review trafficking case records and send untested kits to BCI or another crime lab within one year of April 4, 2023, and must send kits within 30 days in new trafficking investigations. Defendants get the inventory rights in (B)(5), and the destruction limits after a guilty or no-contest plea in (B)(8) apply. The 2016 version of the section did not mention 2905.32.", "forPractitioners": "In a trafficking case, ask whether the kit was sent to a lab within the deadline and request the inventory.", "sources": [ { "label": "R.C. 2933.82 (April 4, 2023)", "url": "https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2933.82/4-4-2023" }, { "label": "Bill status", "url": "https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/134/sb288/status" } ] }, { "state": "New Jersey", "id": "olenowski-i", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/new-jersey#olenowski-i", "date": "2023-02-17", "title": "Daubert-type test replaces Frye in criminal cases", "type": "State v. Olenowski, 253 N.J. 133 (2023) (Olenowski I)", "summary": "The Court adopted, going forward, a non-exclusive, multi-factor reliability test for criminal and quasi-criminal cases, patterned on Daubert and on the civil test in Accutane. The factors include testability, peer review, error rate and standards, and general acceptance. It declined to adopt the full body of Daubert case law. Matters ruled on before this date stay under Frye. The date and holding come from the court’s later opinions in Olenowski II and Nieves.", "forPractitioners": "Error rates and standards for a forensic method now matter in criminal cases, not only general acceptance.", "sources": [ { "label": "State v. Olenowski", "url": "https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2023/a_56_18.pdf" }, { "label": "State v. Nieves", "url": "https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a_26_27_23.pdf" } ] }, { "state": "California", "id": "sb-467", "url": "https://uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/california#sb-467", "date": "2023-01-01", "title": "Habeas ground for a significant dispute over expert testimony", "type": "SB 467 (Stats. 2022, ch. 982)", "summary": "Adds a habeas ground where a significant dispute has emerged or developed in the petitioner’s favor about expert medical, scientific, or forensic testimony. It also adds expert opinion undermined by “the state of scientific knowledge” to the definition of false evidence. Opinions repudiated by the expert or undermined by later research were already false evidence under earlier law.", "forPractitioners": "The petitioner need not prove the original testimony was false, only that the dispute meets the statute.", "sources": [ { "label": "SB 467", "url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB467" } ] } ] }