South Dakota
South Dakota has no forensic science commission and no general crime lab accreditation statute; the State Forensic Laboratory sits in the Attorney General’s office. Since March 31, 2026, the proponent of expert testimony must show the court it is more likely than not that Rule 702 is met, matching the 2023 federal amendment. DNA is taken from adults arrested for felonies. Since July 1, 2026, consumer genetic testing companies need separate, named consent for each disclosure of a customer’s genetic data, and the text has no exception for disclosures to police.
- Sources checked
- Part of
- Forensic Ledger
At a glance
- Oversight body
- No forensic science commission or lab oversight board. “There is created in the Office of the Attorney General a State Forensic Laboratory,” which the Attorney General may assign to the Division of Criminal Investigation (SDCL 23-3-19.1). The lab “shall conduct scientific examinations to assist law enforcement officers in criminal investigations” (23-3-19.2). It runs the State DNA Database and may cut off a public DNA lab’s access to it if quality-assurance standards are not met (23-5A-20).
- Lab accreditation
- No general mandate. Sexual assault kits go to the Division of Criminal Investigation “or another accredited laboratory” within 14 days and must be analyzed within 90 days. An accredited laboratory is a DNA lab formally recognized as meeting standards that include the FBI director’s quality assurance standards (SDCL 23-5C-1, 23-5C-4). DNA database procedures “shall also require compliance with national quality assurance standards” (23-5A-16). SDCL 34-14-25 requires accredited labs for clinical genetic tests, but its definition reaches only disease-predisposition tests, so forensic identity testing is outside it (34-14-21). A search of the full SDCL found no other forensic lab accreditation provision.
- Analyst licensing
- No general licensing. A DUI breath test “shall be performed according to methods approved by the director of laboratories and by a person possessing a valid permit issued by the director of laboratories,” and permits can be revoked (SDCL 32-23-14.1). Sworn statements of State Forensic Laboratory employees, or of “a certified chemist employed by a law enforcement agency,” are prima facie evidence, but the accused may demand live testimony (23-3-19.3).
- Admissibility standard
- Rule 702 with the 2023 federal language. Supreme Court Rule 26-04, effective March 31, 2026, requires that “the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not” that each element is met. It also replaced “the expert has reliably applied” with “the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of” the principles and methods (SDCL 19-19-702). This tracks the December 1, 2023 amendment to Federal Rule 702.
- Post-conviction forensic relief
- No. A person convicted of a felony who is imprisoned or under a death sentence may seek DNA testing, including on evidence “Previously subjected to DNA testing” when “requesting DNA testing using a new method or technology that is substantially more probative than the prior DNA testing” (SDCL 23-5B-1(5)(b)). If the results exclude the petitioner, the court grants a new trial when the results, “considered with all other evidence,” “establish by compelling evidence that a new trial would result in the acquittal” (23-5B-15, 23-5B-16). No statute addresses new or changed forensic science generally.
- DNA database scope
- Arrestee and conviction. “Any person eighteen years of age or older who is arrested for a qualifying offense shall provide a DNA sample upon booking” (SDCL 23-5A-5.2, 2008). People convicted or adjudicated delinquent of a qualifying offense on or after July 1, 2003 also give samples (23-5A-4, 23-5A-5), as do registered sex offenders (23-5A-5.1). A qualifying offense is any felony, a crime of violence under 22-1-2, or a violation of chapter 22-22 (23-5A-1(8)). An arrestee may ask for expungement if no felony charge is filed within a year, or the case ends in dismissal, acquittal, a misdemeanor conviction or no felony conviction (23-5A-28).
- Facial recognition
- No statute. A full-text scan of the SDCL found no “facial recognition,” “genetic genealogy” or “rapid DNA.” The 2026 consumer genetic data law limits what testing companies may disclose (see changes).
Changes, 2023 to 2026
Consumer genetic testing companies need separate, named consent for each disclosure; police forensic labs exempt
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies must obtain “Separate express consent, which must include the name of the person receiving the information, for each transfer or disclosure of the consumer’s genetic data or biological sample to any person other than the company’s vendors and service providers.” They must also give privacy notices, keep security programs, and honor deletion and sample-destruction requests. The Attorney General may seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation. Exempt: “A forensic laboratory that is operated by, associated with, or under contract with, a law enforcement agency, when performing forensic analysis or related services as part of a criminal investigation” (37-24-64(5)). The text has no law-enforcement or legal-process exception for the companies themselves, so the consent rule appears to reach company disclosures to police. That is a reading of the text; no court has construed it.
For practitioners: In a genetic genealogy case, ask whether any consumer company disclosed data to police after July 1, 2026, and whether it had the customer’s named-recipient consent.
Who may perform sexual assault forensic medical exams; hospital and clinic evidence and chain-of-custody policies
New 22-22-26.6: a forensic medical exam may be given only by a licensed physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or sexual assault nurse examiner, a term now defined in 22-22-26.5. Hospitals and clinics must ensure appropriate training or use telehealth observation by a trained provider. New 22-22-26.7 and 26.8: hospitals (other than specialized hospitals) and clinics that give exams must keep policies on timely transfers “to best preserve the integrity of forensic evidence” and on coordination with law enforcement “for the processing, storage, and maintenance of the chain of custody of evidence.” The act covers evidence collection, not lab analysis.
For practitioners: Check the examiner’s credential against 22-22-26.6, and ask for the facility’s evidence and chain-of-custody policy.
SDCL 19-19-702 amended to track the 2023 federal Rule 702 change
The rule inserts “the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not” before the four elements of Rule 702. In (d), it strikes “expert has reliably applied” and inserts “expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of” the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
For practitioners: The proponent must now show, by a preponderance, sufficient basis, reliable method and reliable application. Frame challenges to forensic opinions as admissibility questions for the judge, not weight for the jury.
Forensic medical exam defined to include evidence collection, chain of custody and toxicology screening
The act created the definition of a forensic medical examination in 22-22-26.5. It covers examination of physical trauma, the patient interview and history, and “Collection and evaluation of any evidence,” including photographs, “preservation and maintenance of the chain of custody of evidence,” medical specimen collection and any toxicology screening the provider finds necessary. SB 87 (2026) restated the definition. The act also amended 22-22-26 to 22-22-26.4, which make the county where the offense occurred pay for the exam and cover consent; those amendments were not compared line by line.
For practitioners: When kit evidence is offered, ask for the exam record of evidence collection and chain of custody.
Convicted defendants must repay digital forensic exam costs, up to $95 per device
A person convicted of a felony or misdemeanor must, as part of the sentence, repay “the cost of any digital forensic examination performed on any personal electronic device” in the case, up to $95 per device. Devices include phones, tablets, laptops, computers and two-way messaging devices. The money goes to a new internet crimes investigation fund for hardware, software licenses and training. The act funds digital forensics; it sets no standards for the examinations. A 2023 version, SB 54, failed on the Senate floor on January 24, 2023, 15 to 20, after Senate Judiciary recommended it 6 to 1.
For practitioners: Check that any reimbursement order is limited to examined devices and does not exceed $95 per device.
Pending bills
No bill on these topics is pending. The 2026 session has ended, and no 2027 bills were found. A bill-text search of the 2023 to 2026 sessions found no other bills on forensic oversight, lab accreditation, Rule 702, facial recognition or genetic genealogy. A bill that did not pass:
- SB 54 (2023), digital forensic exam reimbursement, failed on the Senate floor; its substance was enacted in 2024 as SB 15 (SB 54).
Checked and unchanged
- SDCL 23-3-19.1 and 23-3-19.2 (State Forensic Laboratory): last amended in 1985. 23-3-19.3 (lab statements as evidence): last amended in 2006.
- DNA database chapter 23-5A: arrestee collection (23-5A-5.2) dates from 2008 and the qualifying offense definition (23-5A-1) from 2003; no 2023 to 2026 amendment in the sections checked.
- Post-conviction DNA chapter 23-5B: every section checked dates from 2009 only.
- Sexual assault kit chapter 23-5C: last amended in 2022 (23-5C-2, -3) and 2019 (23-5C-4).
- SDCL 32-23-14.1 (DUI analyst permits): last amended in 1998.
Last updated October 20, 2026Source: United States Council for Law & InvestigationCite as: United States Council for Law & Investigation, “South Dakota forensic science oversight: Forensic Ledger,” uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/south-dakota (last updated October 20, 2026). Text licensed CC BY 4.0.