Provides for naming the Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory after Bo Duhe'
Summary
HB 92 authorizes the Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory Commission to name the new Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory building the Martin Bofill "Bo" Duhé Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory. The measure is a naming bill only; it does not change the laboratory’s operational authority, funding structure, or criminal justice functions. The bill also includes legislative findings describing Bo Duhé’s service on the commission and his role in helping secure funding for the new 40,000-square-foot facility.
The bill’s practical effect is to create a statutory designation for the new laboratory building and formally honor District Attorney Martin Bofill "Bo" Duhé. It enacts R.S. 40:2267.6, which specifically authorizes the commission to use the honorary name notwithstanding any other law to the contrary. The act becomes effective upon gubernatorial signature or otherwise under the Louisiana Constitution’s default enactment rules.
Impact
HB 92 amends Louisiana law by adding a new statute in Title 40 governing the Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory District. Its legal impact is limited to permitting the commission to name the new building after Bo Duhé; it does not alter criminalistics laboratory governance, local district powers, or state criminal procedure. The affected parties are the Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory Commission, the Acadiana Regional Legislative Delegation, and the public institution being named, along with the honoree and his supporters.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly and strongly supported. It passed the House 93-0 and the Senate 37-0, with an additional unanimous Senate vote on co-authors, indicating no recorded opposition in either chamber. The legislative findings and the bill’s honorary purpose suggest a positive, ceremonial sentiment centered on recognition of public service and regional collaboration.
Contention
There is no evident substantive controversy in the available record. Because the bill is a naming measure, any potential concern would likely have been limited to the appropriateness of honoring a sitting or former public official, but no such objection appears in the votes or provided discussion materials. The unanimous votes suggest the measure was noncontroversial and widely accepted across both chambers.