AN ACT to amend and reenact section 31-13-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to deoxyribonucleic acid testing, sampling, and procedure; and to declare an emergency.
Summary
HB 1044 amends North Dakota Century Code section 31-13-04 governing DNA testing procedures. The bill specifies who may collect samples for DNA testing and how those samples must be handled. It continues to allow blood or other body fluid samples to be obtained in a medically approved manner by a physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, phlebotomist, or medical technologist, and it allows saliva samples to be collected by a licensed peace officer or correctional officer. It also permits personnel from outside the state to collect and submit samples if the laboratory approves.
The bill is primarily procedural and administrative, updating the state’s DNA sampling rules rather than changing substantive criminal or civil law. It reinforces that samples must be packaged and submitted using laboratory-approved kits and in accordance with laboratory rules, and it preserves immunity from civil or criminal liability for authorized individuals who collect blood or body-fluid samples using approved techniques. The act is declared an emergency measure, indicating it takes effect immediately upon enactment.
Impact
HB 1044 affects the state’s DNA collection and testing framework under section 31-13-04 by clarifying authorized personnel, approved collection methods, and laboratory oversight. It does not create a new testing program or expand categories of persons subject to DNA collection; instead, it refines procedures for obtaining, packaging, and submitting samples and maintains liability protections for those acting within approved protocols. The practical effect is on law enforcement, correctional facilities, medical professionals, and the state laboratory system.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 90-0 and the Senate 45-0, with no recorded opposition in either chamber. The unanimous votes suggest general agreement that the measure is a technical or housekeeping update to existing DNA testing procedures and an appropriate emergency measure.
Contention
No notable contention is reflected in the available record. There were no committee transcripts provided, and the floor votes were unanimous in both chambers. Based on the text, any discussion would likely have centered on administrative details such as who may collect samples, whether outside-agency personnel may participate, and the scope of immunity for authorized collectors, but no opposition or disagreement is documented.