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.
HB 1044 amends North Dakota law governing how DNA samples may be collected, handled, and submitted for testing. The bill updates section 31-13-04 of the Century Code to specify that blood or other body-fluid samples for DNA testing may be obtained in a medically approved manner by certain medical professionals, including physicians, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, phlebotomists, and medical technologists, and then packaged and submitted according to laboratory-approved kits and rules.
The bill also authorizes saliva samples for DNA testing to be collected by licensed peace officers or correctional officers, with the same requirement that samples be packaged and submitted using laboratory-approved kits and procedures. It further extends the ability for outside-state agency personnel to collect and submit samples if the laboratory approves. The bill includes immunity language stating that civil or criminal liability does not attach to authorized individuals who draw or obtain blood or other body-fluid samples for DNA testing when they follow laboratory-approved techniques, and it declares the act an emergency measure.
HB 1044 narrows and clarifies the procedures for DNA sample collection under North Dakota Century Code section 31-13-04, while preserving immunity for authorized collectors who follow approved methods. It affects medical personnel, law enforcement, correctional staff, and outside agencies involved in DNA collection and submission, and it reinforces the role of the laboratory in approving kits and sampling techniques. Because it is declared an emergency measure, the changes take effect immediately upon enactment rather than waiting for the usual effective date.
The available legislative record shows strong, unanimous support for the bill. It passed the House 90-0 and the Senate 45-0, with only a small number of absences and no recorded dissent in the provided materials. The lack of committee transcript excerpts or recorded debate suggests the measure was viewed as a technical or administrative update rather than a controversial policy change.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided record. The bill appears to have been noncontroversial, likely because it primarily clarifies existing DNA collection procedures, identifies who may collect certain sample types, and preserves immunity for compliant actors. If any concerns existed, they are not visible in the supplied votes or committee materials.