SB1723

Two different time limits: the pilot defines rapid analysis as automated processing of a reference cheek swab into a record eligible for comparison in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) within two hours, without sending it to a crime laboratory. The broader authority defines rapid analysis of a known reference or forensic sample as producing a comparison-eligible record within 24 hours. Neither definition guarantees a database match, a solved crime or a conviction. Final law, sections 1 and 6.

Pilot schedule: the Department of Public Safety (DPS) must begin technology updates by September 1, 2025, begin implementation in two DPS-selected counties by September 1, 2026, and review and report to the Legislature by January 1, 2028. DPS may expand to other counties, consult the FBI, accept gifts/grants/donations and adopt rules. The pilot section expires September 1, 2028; the broader testing authority has no matching expiration. These are statutory deadlines, not confirmation that implementation has occurred. Final law, section 6.

Approval and oversight: an agency must request and receive the DPS director’s authorization for its rapid-testing system. Standards must meet or exceed current FBI quality-assurance and proficiency-testing standards. Authorized agencies must follow state and FBI procedures, forward analysis records to DPS, and permit inspections or audits. Existing collection, preservation and permitted-use requirements remain; the existing ban on taking blood to create records under section 411.1471 remains. Approved rapid results become an additional submission option for those samples and for certain registered-offender samples. Final law, sections 2, 4–5 and 7–9; Existing registered-offender provision.

Database privacy changes: the former prohibition on names or other personal identifying information in CODIS now has an exception when the FBI approves. The DNA database may include only FBI-approved criminal-history information, subject to the subchapter’s other provisions, rather than the prior general prohibition. The act also extends quality-control language to agencies performing analyses. It does not make DNA records public or repeal existing confidentiality, restricted-release or expunction provisions. Final law, section 3; Prior database restrictions; Restricted release; Existing expunction rules; Confidentiality.

What changed during passage: the introduced, Senate committee, Senate-passed and House committee texts contained the pilot alone and matched in their operative language. Little’s sole indexed House floor amendment, adopted May 23, added the broader testing authority, standards, database changes and submission options; all appear in the final law. The Senate concurred May 30. The two-hour pilot was retained, not replaced by the 24-hour definition. Introduced; Senate committee; Senate-passed; House committee; Little amendment; Amendment index; Version index; Final law.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Faster processing could help investigators identify or exclude suspects sooner and reduce missing DNA submissions at booking. Those are intended benefits, not measured results. People whose DNA is collected face expanded processing and possible FBI-approved identifying/criminal-history data storage, making authorization, quality controls and existing confidentiality and removal rules important. The law does not say every sample may be collected without lawful authority or that a DNA comparison alone proves guilt. Final law; Existing lawful-submission and use conditions; Existing investigative purposes; Removal rules.

The April 28 introduced and May 25 post-House fiscal notes estimate the same state General Revenue cost: $6,489,194 for fiscal 2026–2027 ($3,549,647 in 2026 and $2,939,547 in 2027), plus $3,167,549 in 2028. They estimate six staff positions, with devices, software changes and testing supplies among the costs; DPS said these duties could not be absorbed with existing resources. The tables show zero in 2029–2030, but do not establish that the broader permanent authority has no future cost. The May 25 note’s narrative describes the pilot and does not separately price the House-added powers or privacy changes. No significant local fiscal impact is anticipated. The act itself appropriates no money. Introduced fiscal note; Post-House fiscal note; Enrolled-linked fiscal note; Final law.