Utah
Utah has no forensic science commission, no lab accreditation statute and no analyst license; the Bureau of Forensic Services in the Department of Public Safety runs the state lab. Since 2023 a statute sets conditions for investigative genetic genealogy, and agencies report each use; since July 1, 2026, the reports go to the Department of Criminal Justice. Since March 6, 2026, Rule 707 applies reliability conditions to machine-generated evidence offered without an expert. Utah has also revised arrestee DNA processing and evidence retention, and by January 1, 2027 every local police agency must have mobile device forensics capability.
- Sources checked
- Part of
- Forensic Ledger
At a glance
- Oversight body
- No forensic science commission. The Bureau of Forensic Services sits in the Department of Public Safety’s criminal investigations division, under a bureau chief who serves at the commissioner’s will (Utah Code 53-10-401). Its duties include “quality, timely, and comprehensive analysis” and expert testimony (53-10-402). Law enforcement agencies must report each genetic genealogy database utilization by April 30 each year; since July 1, 2026, the reports go to the Department of Criminal Justice, which publishes the data by August 1 (53-25-401).
- Lab accreditation
- No statute requiring accreditation was found in Title 53, Chapter 10, Parts 1, 4 and 9. DNA analysis must use only procedures “consistent with, and [that] do not exceed, procedures established and used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation” (Utah Code 53-10-406(1)(g)). Rapid DNA may be used beyond booking or paired investigative testing only by the bureau, as the state’s NDIS participating lab “that follows the Federal Bureau of Investigation Quality Assurance Standards” (53-10-403.6(3)).
- Analyst licensing
- None. Facial recognition comparisons may be made only by a “trained employee,” trained in comparison and identification and in implicit bias, and any probable match needs a second person’s confirmation (Utah Code 77-23e-102(8), 77-23e-103(4)).
- Admissibility standard
- Utah R. Evid. 702, effective November 1, 2007, restyled in 2011 (Rule 702). Specialized knowledge may support expert testimony “only if there is a threshold showing” that the principles or methods are reliable, based on sufficient facts or data, and reliably applied (702(b)). The showing is met if they are “generally accepted by the relevant expert community” (702(c)). Utah has not adopted the 2023 change to Federal Rule 702; the advisory note says the 2007 rule “preserves and clarifies differences between the Utah and federal approaches.” Since March 6, 2026, Rule 707 governs machine-generated evidence offered without an expert when its inference, prediction, classification or conclusion would be subject to Rule 702(b) if an expert testified to it: it is admissible only if it will help the trier of fact, rests on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of them to the case (Rule 707). Outputs of simple scientific instruments are exempt.
- Post-conviction forensic relief
- No general changed-science statute. Relief is available where biological evidence was not preserved as required and either it was never tested or “there is a material change in circumstance, including a scientific or technological advance” that makes a favorable result plausible (Utah Code 78B-9-104(1)(f)). The favorable result is presumed, and it must show a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome. This ground predates 2023. Other routes: newly discovered material evidence (78B-9-104(1)(e)), post-conviction DNA testing, which since 2023 can include court-ordered investigative genetic genealogy (78B-9-301), and factual-innocence petitions (78B-9-401 et seq.).
- DNA database scope
- Arrestee-based. A DNA specimen is taken at booking for any felony; booking collection for a separate list of violent and other offenses covered only bookings from 2011 through 2014 (Utah Code 53-10-403, 53-10-404.5). It is held unprocessed until bindover, waiver of the preliminary hearing or indictment “for a felony level offense,” or until 60 days after any arrest warrant issues if the warrant is still outstanding (53-10-404.5(4), as amended in 2025). Specimens are also taken on conviction of any felony or class A misdemeanor, from juveniles 14 and older adjudicated for those offenses, and from sex, kidnap and child abuse registrants (53-10-403, 53-10-404). The bureau must destroy a booking specimen if no charges are filed within 90 days for a 53-10-403(2)(c) offense (53-10-406(1)(h)). Destruction and removal procedures apply after reversal, dismissal with prejudice, acquittal, or no charge within one year (53-10-406).
- Facial recognition
- Comprehensive statute for government use (Utah Code 77-23e, 2021). Only law enforcement may request a comparison, in writing, with a case number and, for crimes, a statement showing “a fair probability” that the subject is connected. The purpose must be investigating a felony, violent crime or threat to life, or identifying a dead, incapacitated or at-risk person. Use for civil immigration violations is barred, and the Department of Public Safety is the only entity that may search its own databases (77-23e-104). Agencies must tell prosecutors in writing whether and how facial recognition was used (77-23e-103(5)).
Changes, 2023 to 2026
Genetic genealogy use reports now go to the Department of Criminal Justice
Law enforcement agencies must report by April 30 each year, for the previous year, the number of genetic genealogy database utilizations they requested and, for each, the type of qualifying case, the alleged offense, whether it was a cold case and whether the results revealed the identity of the DNA’s owner. The recipient changes from the State Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice to the Department of Criminal Justice (Utah Code 75E-2-102), which must set the reporting format, compile the data and publish it on its website by August 1. The duty began with 2023 SB 156 as Utah Code 53-22-101 and was renumbered in 2024 to 53-25-401.
For practitioners: Look for the annual genetic genealogy data on the Department of Criminal Justice website, not the commission’s.
Custody-based retention of violent felony biological evidence limited to 21 offenses; federal habeas period added; new disposal notice for misdemeanor evidence
Biological evidence of a violent felony must be kept while “an individual remains in custody if the individual is convicted of” one of 21 listed offenses, including aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, child abuse homicide, kidnapping, rape, rape of a child, forcible sodomy, sexual abuse of a child, robbery, felony discharge of a firearm and aggravated assault resulting in bodily injury (77-11c-401(2)(a)(ii)). Before, the period ran as long as “any individual convicted of the violent felony offense, or a lesser included offense, remains in custody.” Other violent felonies and lesser-included convictions no longer trigger the custody period; the other periods stay (statute of limitations if unsolved, one year after direct appeals, pending state post-conviction cases, and 20 years for sexual assault kit contents, now (2)(a)(vi)). New (2)(a)(v) adds the time a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is pending if filed within the federal one-year period. The same custody and habeas changes apply to felony evidence generally (77-11c-301).
Misdemeanor evidence (77-11c-203): before, the prosecutor sent notice to anyone charged with or adjudicated for the offense and the most recent attorney, who had 30 days to object. Now the agency sends its disposal request, by certified mail or a tracked delivery service, including electronic, to any individual who remains in custody on a conviction related to the evidence, that person’s attorney or public defender of record, the attorney’s employer at the time of conviction, and the prosecuting agency. Any of them may object in writing within 60 days. A charged person who is not in custody on a related conviction no longer gets notice, and, unlike 77-11c-303 and 401, the list does not include the Attorney General. The prosecutor’s 15-day receipt and 60-day decision deadlines, escalation to a supervising prosecutor, and the exemption for disposal under a memorandum of understanding carry over from prior law. New 77-11c-303(11) adds a memorandum-of-understanding exemption to the felony procedure, but its text refers to “evidence of a misdemeanor offense.”
For practitioners: For violent felonies outside the 21 listed offenses, evidence may no longer be kept for the whole custody term; file retention requests or testing motions early.
Local police must have mobile device forensics capability by January 1, 2027
By January 1, 2027, every municipal, county, interlocal or special district law enforcement agency “shall” have its own mobile device forensics services, have a contract, partnership or agreement to share such services (not counting the FBI-run Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory), or be a participating agency that staffs that laboratory with trained personnel for at least 2,000 hours a year. Any local agency may still use the laboratory’s self-serve equipment, and its advanced services when standard extraction has failed or would fail. “Mobile device forensics services” means a facility, equipment or capability for collecting and examining digital evidence on a phone or tablet. The section sets no accreditation, examiner qualification or quality standard.
For practitioners: Ask who extracted a phone and under what written procedures; the statute requires capacity, not standards.
New Rule of Evidence 707 sets reliability conditions for machine-generated evidence
“Machine-generated evidence” is information produced by a machine-based system that autonomously processes data to generate an inference, prediction, classification or conclusion. When offered without expert testimony, and its output would be subject to Rule 702(b) if an expert testified to it, it may be admitted only if it (A) helps the trier of fact, (B) is based on sufficient facts or data, (C) is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (D) reflects a reliable application of those principles and methods to the case. The rule does not apply to the output of a “simple scientific instrument,” which directly measures and reports information. It applies whether the evidence comes in directly or with lay testimony. Condition (D) uses the wording of the 2023 federal Rule 702 change; the rule does not state a “more likely than not” burden. Rule 702 itself is unchanged.
For practitioners: When software output such as an automated match or classification comes in without an expert, object under Rule 707 and require a showing on all four conditions.
Booking DNA processed 60 days after any outstanding warrant; felony-level trigger; prosecutor must notify of destruction rights
A held booking specimen may be processed once 60 days have passed “after the day on which any warrant of arrest has been issued for the person if the warrant of arrest is still outstanding” (53-10-404.5(4)(d)). The prior trigger was a warrant for failure to appear. The rule applies to specimens “obtained before, on, or after May 7, 2025.” Bindover, waiver of the preliminary hearing and indictment now trigger processing only if “for a felony level offense.” The $150 fee applies only on conviction of “a class A misdemeanor or felony level offense,” not any charge. New 53-10-406(7): when charges end in dismissal with prejudice, acquittal or reversal, the prosecutor who filed them “shall notify the person” of how to request destruction of the specimen and removal of the record.
For practitioners: A client with any outstanding warrant for 60 days may have a held specimen processed, including one taken before May 7, 2025; after dismissal or acquittal, look for the prosecutor’s notice.
Violent felony evidence retention revised: co-defendant custody period removed, appeal and post-conviction periods added
In 77-11c-401, the act deleted retention for “the length of time that a co-defendant remains in custody.” The custody period changed from “the individual convicted of the violent felony offense or any lesser included violent offense” to “any individual convicted of the violent felony offense, or a lesser included offense” (narrowed again by 2026 SB 71). It added retention for one year after all direct appeals are exhausted and while a timely post-conviction petition and appeal are pending, and, after acquittal or dismissal, retention at the prosecutor’s discretion. Under the companion 2024 HB 328, a written retention request now keeps evidence for the full retention period, not only while the defendant is in custody. The exception for evidence too bulky to keep was replaced by a court-petition procedure, and the employing public defender entity was added to the notice recipients, with 180 days to respond. The act also amended the felony evidence retention periods (77-11c-301) and enacted the felony disposal requirements and procedure (77-11c-302, -303).
For practitioners: Evidence is no longer kept just because a co-defendant is still in custody; with 2024 HB 328, a written retention request now covers the full period.
Sexual assault kits kept at least 20 years; 180-day notice to victims who ask before early disposal
Former 53-10-905 barred disposal before trial of kits in uncharged or unresolved cases until 50 years after collection, and of restricted kits until 20 years after collection plus conditions. The act repealed and reenacted the section: an agency must preserve a kit under the Title 77, Chapter 11c retention rules. Those rules now include 20 years from collection for sexual assault kit contents, for misdemeanor and felony evidence and, as one of the periods of which the longest applies, for violent felony biological evidence. If the victim asked in writing to be told, an agency that plans to dispose of a kit before the period ends must give notice at least 180 days ahead by certified mail or a tracked delivery service, and a written request from the victim within that time requires retention for the full period. The act also amended the victims’ rights section (77-37-3) to refer to this notice and retention request.
For practitioners: The fixed 50-year floor for kits in unresolved cases is gone; check which 77-11c period applied before a kit was destroyed.
Investigative genetic genealogy statute: conditions, third-party samples, confirmatory testing, reporting and post-conviction use
Law enforcement may request an investigative genetic genealogy service or database utilization only if it has a forensic DNA profile believed to come from a perpetrator, unidentified remains or a missing or unknown person; the case is a “qualifying case” (a violent felony, or identifying a missing or unknown person); a CODIS search found no match; the agency, the bureau and the prosecutor have consulted; and the agency and prosecutor commit to further investigation (53-10-403.7). A third-party sample requires consulting the prosecutor plus the person’s informed, voluntary consent. Covert collection is allowed only if the agency has reasonable grounds to believe a consent request “would compromise the integrity of the investigation” and the prosecutor authorizes it; the agency must ask the prosecutor to consult the prosecutor where the sample will be taken, and get a warrant if necessary. Third-party samples may be used only to identify or exonerate a possible suspect or identify a missing or unknown person. Genealogy companies used must tell users about law enforcement use, offer an opt-in or opt-out, and bar resale of crime data. Before an arrest, the agency and bureau must verify the match with confirmatory genetic testing unless there is enough independent evidence. After charging, the agency must, if applicable, do confirmatory testing and ask the company to return and delete the data. A violation gives no suppression standing without a constitutional violation; a civil finding of a knowing violation bars the employee from this work for one year. Agencies report each use annually (now 53-25-401). Post-conviction DNA testing orders may include genetic genealogy only if the petitioner asks, no other DNA test can give a conclusive or any result, it may reasonably identify the perpetrator, it is done under the lab requirements of 78B-9-301(6), and, if applicable, the petitioner or a third party pays added investigative costs (78B-9-301(10)). The act also redefined “DNA specimen” and added a “DNA profile” definition (53-10-403.5).
For practitioners: In a genealogy-led case, ask for the confirmatory test and the prosecutor’s consultation records; for a client seeking exoneration, 78B-9-301(10) allows a genealogy request.
Enacted, not yet in force, and bills that did not pass
No bill on these topics is pending. The 2026 General Session has adjourned. HB 459 (2026, sexual offense evidence and reporting procedures, including restricted and limited reports) and SB 259 (2026, signed statements of lawful evidence collection) are not on the passed-bills list and did not become law (2026 passed bills). 2026 HB 182 (Genetic Information Amendments, ch. 70) passed and takes effect May 1, 2027. It restricts certain genetic sequencers and genetic data storage; its effect on crime lab equipment was not analyzed. Failed bills from 2023 to 2025 were not listed.
Checked and unchanged
- Utah Code 53-10-403.6 (rapid DNA): enacted in 2020, not amended. 53-10-403 (DNA offense list): 2026 HB 423 (ch. 337, effective July 1, 2026) only updated a cross-reference. 53-10-403.5 (definitions): 2024 SB 88 (ch. 256) changed cross-references.
- Utah Code 78B-9-104 (post-conviction grounds): amended in 2025 and 2026 for recodification cross-references only. Subsection (1)(f) on unpreserved biological evidence and scientific advances predates 2023.
- 2023 SB 120 (ch. 448) moved the biological evidence preservation statutes from Title 53, Chapter 20 to Title 77, Chapter 11c, Part 4. The renumbering is not counted as a change; any substantive changes it made were not compared.
- Utah R. Evid. 702: effective November 1, 2007; 2011 restyling only. Utah Code 77-23e (facial recognition): enacted in 2021; 77-23e-102 was amended in the 2025 First Special Session for a cross-reference.
- Outside this tracker’s scope: reverse-location and reverse-keyword warrant laws (2023 HB 57, 2025 HB 273) and the 2026 Electronic Information Privacy Act changes (HB 261).
Last updated October 19, 2026Source: United States Council for Law & InvestigationCite as: United States Council for Law & Investigation, “Utah forensic science oversight: Forensic Ledger,” uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/utah (last updated October 19, 2026). Text licensed CC BY 4.0.