In DNA data and testing, further providing for policy, for definitions, for State DNA Data Base, for State Police recommendation of additional offenses and annual report and for DNA sample required upon conviction, delinquency adjudication and certain ARD cases, providing for request for modified DNA search and further providing for DNA data base exchange, for expungement and for mandatory cost; and making an editorial change.
HB1665 amends Pennsylvania’s DNA data and testing laws to expand when DNA samples may be collected and how the State DNA Data Base is used. The bill updates the policy and definitions sections, broadens the list of offenses covered by DNA collection, and makes clear that DNA sampling applies not only after conviction or delinquency adjudication but also upon arrest for criminal homicide, felony sex offenses, and other specified offenses. It also requires collection at fingerprinting, bars release until DNA and fingerprints are collected, and creates a separate database category for arrest-based DNA records.
The bill also adds a new process for a “modified DNA search,” which allows criminal justice agencies to request familial-search-style comparisons in unsolved cases when routine searches have not solved the case and other investigative leads have been exhausted. In addition, it revises annual reporting requirements, expands expungement provisions for cases that are dismissed, reversed, not prosecuted, or otherwise not chargeable, and maintains a mandatory $250 cost for covered offenders unless hardship is shown. The act would take effect in 60 days.
HB1665 would significantly expand the scope of Pennsylvania’s DNA collection regime by authorizing DNA collection at arrest for specified serious offenses and by requiring the State Police to maintain a separate database category for those arrest-based samples. It would also formalize familial or close-relative DNA searching in unsolved cases, adjust reporting obligations to include arrest-based and expunged samples, and preserve or broaden the State Police’s authority over DNA database exchange, expungement, and cost assessment. Affected parties include arrestees, convicted offenders, juveniles adjudicated delinquent, ARD participants, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and the State Police.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive of stronger forensic tools and broader DNA collection authority for law enforcement. The measure is framed as a public-safety and investigative enhancement, especially for homicide, sex offense, and unsolved cases. Because no transcripts or vote history are provided, there is no documented opposition or recorded bipartisan division in the available materials.
The main points of potential contention are the expansion of DNA collection to the arrest stage, the retention of samples before conviction, and the use of modified or familial DNA searches, which raise privacy, due process, and civil liberties concerns. Critics could object to collecting DNA from people who have only been arrested or whose charges are later dismissed, while supporters would likely emphasize investigative value and solving cold cases. The bill also imposes a mandatory $250 cost on covered offenders, which could draw concern from those worried about financial burdens on defendants and juveniles.