HB 340 amends New Mexico’s DNA Identification Act to address what happens when a person’s DNA has been collected after an arrest for a felony, but the person dies before formal felony charges are filed. Under the bill, the administrative center must enter that DNA into CODIS, the state and national DNA database system, once the person dies if the person was arrested for a felony and died before being charged.
The bill creates two different procedures depending on the person’s custody status at death. If the person was not incarcerated when they died, the DNA may be entered into CODIS only after a motion by the district attorney and a court order from the court that would have had jurisdiction over the felony case. If the person was incarcerated at death, or had been released before July 1, 1997, the DNA is entered automatically. The measure is aimed at ensuring that qualifying DNA samples are not lost from the database simply because the suspect died before charges were filed.
Impact
HB 340 expands the circumstances under which DNA collected from felony arrestees may be retained and entered into CODIS, even when no criminal charge was ultimately filed because the person died. It adds a new section to the DNA Identification Act and directs the administrative center to process these samples according to the person’s incarceration status at death. The bill affects the state’s DNA database procedures, district attorneys, courts with hypothetical felony jurisdiction, and individuals whose DNA was collected under Section 29-3-10 NMSA 1978.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support. It passed the House unanimously, 61-0, and the Senate by a strong margin, 35-6. The voting history suggests general agreement that the measure is a procedural update to preserve DNA records in qualifying cases, with limited visible opposition.
Contention
No committee transcript is available, so specific arguments are not recorded in the provided materials. The main potential point of contention is the balance between law-enforcement interests in preserving DNA profiles for CODIS and privacy or due-process concerns about entering DNA when a person was never formally charged. The bill also distinguishes between people who were incarcerated at death and those who were not, requiring a court order and district attorney motion only in the latter case, which may reflect concern about limiting automatic entry in some situations.