Indiana
Indiana has no forensic lab oversight body, no lab accreditation mandate and no analyst license; DNA labs must follow national quality standards. Its only forensic body, the Commission on Forensic Sciences, is repealed effective July 1, 2027. Since 2023 the State has barred lineups based on facial recognition alone, made refusing a felony DNA sample a misdemeanor, capped what genetic testing companies may charge police for warrant returns, and allowed privately funded advanced DNA testing, including genetic genealogy, in cold cases.
- Sources checked
- Part of
- Forensic Ledger
At a glance
- Oversight body
- None for crime labs. The Commission on Forensic Sciences, created in 1959, has five governor-appointed members: a pathologist, a police officer, a coroner, a lawyer, and the state health commissioner as secretary (IC 4-23-6). It is directed to adopt rules for a district medical examiner system. It may “establish and maintain a scientific laboratory for research and experimentation” and “correlate information concerning forensic science facilities” (IC 4-23-6-5(a)(1), (4)). These are research and information powers; the commission has no statutory power over crime labs. HEA 1003 (2026) repeals the chapter effective July 1, 2027. Whether the commission now meets could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026.
- Lab accreditation
- No general mandate. Any lab doing forensic DNA analysis in Indiana must “implement and follow nationally recognized standards for DNA quality assurance and proficiency testing, such as those approved by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board” (IC 10-13-6-14(a)). Until national standards are set, the TWGDAM guidelines apply ((b)). That is a standards rule, not an accreditation rule, and it is unchanged since 2003. Post-conviction DNA testing must go to a lab that meets those standards (IC 35-38-7-12), as must testing under the 2026 cold-case chapter (IC 5-2-27.4-8).
- Analyst licensing
- None for forensic analysts. The State Department of Toxicology must “certify law enforcement officers as required by the statutes for the administration of breath and other chemical tests” (IC 10-20-2-5(1)) and may charge fees for certifying breath-test operators (10-20-2-8). Its staff “shall furnish expert testimony regarding the department’s analytical findings” (10-20-2-4(b)). Sections 4 and 5 date from P.L.158-2011, and section 5 was amended by P.L.6-2012. Section 8 was added by P.L.73-2013 and amended by P.L.1-2025.
- Admissibility standard
- Ind. R. Evid. 702, effective January 1, 2014 (Rule 702). Rule 702(b): “Expert scientific testimony is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the expert testimony rests upon reliable scientific principles.” The rule has no “more likely than not” wording, so Indiana has not adopted the 2023 change to Federal Rule 702. The only evidence-rule order from 2023 to 2026, No. 26S-MS-8 (filed March 6, 2026, effective July 1, 2026), amended Rule 103(b) only. Indiana case law on how Rule 702(b) relates to Daubert could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026.
- Post-conviction forensic relief
- No changed-science statute. A person convicted of murder or a Class A to C or Level 1 to 5 felony may petition the sentencing court for DNA testing of evidence held by the State or a court, or in the state DNA database (IC 35-38-7-1, -5). The court “shall order” testing on prima facie proof that the evidence is material to identity, that it is held by the State or a court, or by another person under a sufficient chain of custody, that it was untested or that new testing is “reasonably more discriminating and probative” or has “a reasonable probability of contradicting prior test results,” and that there is a reasonable probability the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted, or would have received a less severe sentence (secs. 8, 9). The State must preserve the evidence during the proceeding, for the later of 20 years after conviction or the period of incarceration, with a further rule in (b) after a conviction is vacated (sec. 14). On favorable results, “notwithstanding any law that would bar a trial as untimely,” the court must order retesting on the prosecutor’s motion, release on joint petition, or a new trial or other relief (sec. 19). Under Post-Conviction Rule 1, a DNA-testing petition is treated as a post-conviction petition, and relief is available for “evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard” (§1(a)(4), (d)).
- DNA database scope
- Felony arrestees and convicted offenders. Samples are taken from people arrested for a felony after December 31, 2017, and from people convicted of a felony after June 30, 2005 or held after that date, plus some older person-offense and burglary convictions (IC 10-13-6-10(a)). Arrestee samples must be buccal swabs and may not be shipped for testing unless the arrest was on a felony warrant or a court found probable cause ((b), (e)). Collectors must tell the person of the right to have the sample removed ((d); removal is under sec. 18). Section 10 was last amended in 2020. Since July 1, 2025, refusing a felony DNA sample taken by the sheriff is a Class C misdemeanor (IC 36-2-13-5).
- Facial recognition
- One narrow rule since July 1, 2025. “If facial recognition technology is used to identify a suspect,” police “may not conduct a lineup unless there is other evidence, in addition to the use of facial recognition technology, to support a belief that the suspect committed the crime” (IC 35-33-4.5-8). Failure to follow the chapter is admissible to support a claim of eyewitness misidentification, “if the evidence is not otherwise inadmissible” (35-33-4.5-7(c)). No statute sets warrant, use-policy, accuracy-testing, disclosure or reporting rules for police facial recognition.
Changes, 2023 to 2026
Privately funded advanced DNA testing, including genetic genealogy, for cold cases
The chapter covers homicide, sex-offense and high-risk missing-person investigations, and coroner cases to identify unknown victims. A “cold case” has been open more than 5 years with no pending charges, or is a coroner case on an unknown victim. “Advanced DNA testing” includes “genetic genealogy.” A law enforcement agency “may” sign a memorandum of understanding with a “qualified entity”: a 501(c)(3) at least 5 years old that funds testing and covers all costs, including state police lab costs, “without use of state funding” (secs. 7, 10). Victims, family members, coroners or the agency may ask the entity to decide eligibility, based on order of request, date of crime and available funds. The lab must meet the IC 10-13-6-14 standards and keep chain of custody, and DNA profile information goes to the state police. Agencies may still pay for testing themselves (sec. 17). Section 10 refers to the criteria in “section 8(A) through 8(E),” but those criteria are in section 7; section 8 defines “testing laboratory.” The reference must mean 7(A) to (E), because 7(F) is itself an MOU under section 10.
For practitioners: The chapter sets no warrant, consent, database-terms or reporting rules for genetic genealogy; ask for the MOU and the lab’s chain-of-custody records.
Eyewitness lineup rules; no lineup on a facial recognition match alone
The act creates a statewide eyewitness identification chapter. Among other rules, a “lineup investigator” must run each lineup, with one suspect and fillers who fit the description. An agency may use an alternative procedure approved by the law enforcement training board if compliance is “impossible or impracticable” (sec. 7(b)). If facial recognition technology was used to identify a suspect, police may not hold a lineup without other evidence that the suspect committed the crime (sec. 8). Noncompliance is admissible to support a misidentification claim, if the evidence is not otherwise inadmissible (sec. 7(c)). It is Indiana’s first statute found on police use of facial recognition, and it reaches only the step from a match to a lineup.
For practitioners: The remedy is evidence of noncompliance at trial, not exclusion. Ask what evidence besides the facial recognition match supported the lineup.
Sheriffs must take DNA samples for felonies; refusal is a misdemeanor
The act adds to the sheriff’s duties “(9) take DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) samples for felonies.” Refusing to give that sample becomes a Class C misdemeanor, alongside the existing offenses of refusing photographs and fingerprints. The act enforces existing collection. It does not change who must give a sample: IC 10-13-6-10, last amended in 2020, still governs that and still bars shipping an arrestee sample without a felony warrant or a probable cause finding.
For practitioners: A refusal charge depends on a lawful felony sample request; the shipping limits in IC 10-13-6-10 still apply.
Consumer genetic testing companies: consent rules and a cost cap on warrant returns
The act regulates direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies: disclosures, separate express consent for uses and third-party access, and a ban on giving data that is not de-identified to insurers or employers. Testing done for a law enforcement investigation at an agency’s request or direction, court-ordered testing, and coroner or medical examiner testing are excluded from the consumer rules (IC 24-4-24-1(b)). A provider may charge no more than actual cost, excluding labor and overhead, for material or data supplied to police on a search warrant or as required by a court order. Only the Attorney General enforces the consumer genetic testing chapter (IC 24-4-24), with civil penalties of up to $7,500 per violation.
For practitioners: The act does not authorize or regulate police use of genealogy databases; it only caps the cost of warrant and court-order returns.
Enacted, not yet in force, and bills that did not pass
The 2026 session has adjourned and the 2027 session has not convened. The sections described here take effect July 1, 2027; the IC 5-26-4-2 change took effect July 1, 2026.
- HEA 1003 (2026), P.L.152-2026: signed March 12, 2026. Section 12 repeals IC 4-23-6, the Commission on Forensic Sciences, including its medical examiner rule power. Conforming sections drop the commission chair from the coroners training board, which goes from seven to six members, and repeal the civil immunity cross-reference for district medical examiners (IC 34-30-2.1-12). The act also repeals the criminal justice advisory committee (IC 10-13-2-10), whose members include “a criminologist or forensic scientist.” Its change to the state police crime lab backlog appropriation statute (IC 5-26-4-2) only replaces “commission” with “department.” HEA 1003
No bill on these topics is pending. Bills that did not pass:
- HB 1563 (2023, facial recognition software); SB 280 (2024) and SB 22 (2025), earlier eyewitness bills; HB 1314 (2026, postconviction proceedings, introduced only); SB 284 (2024) and SB 33 (2025), consumer genetic testing. HB 1314
- SCR 34 (2023) would have directed the state police to study Rapid DNA and report by December 15, 2023. The Senate adopted it on April 13, 2023; it was referred to House Rules on April 27, 2023 and never adopted by the House, so no study mandate took effect. SCR 34
Checked and unchanged
- IC 10-13-6 (DNA database): no amendment from 2023 to 2026 to sections 8, 10, 14 or 18; the last changes were P.L.111-2017 and P.L.142-2020.
- IC 35-38-7 (post-conviction DNA testing): last amended by P.L.89-2022 (section 14, evidence preservation); no amendment from 2023 to 2026.
- Ind. R. Evid. 702: effective January 1, 2014; no order from 2023 to 2026, and no Rule 702 proposal on the Supreme Court’s proposed-rule pages. The Post-Conviction Rule 1 order of January 20, 2026 changes only counsel and service mechanics.
- No statute on rapid DNA or digital forensic lab standards was found.
- Not checked: whether the 2023 and 2025 amendments to IC 35-41-4-2 changed its DNA-discovery tolling clauses, and Indiana case law on Rule 702 and Daubert.
Last updated October 19, 2026Source: United States Council for Law & InvestigationCite as: United States Council for Law & Investigation, “Indiana forensic science oversight: Forensic Ledger,” uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/indiana (last updated October 19, 2026). Text licensed CC BY 4.0.