Arizona

Recent / Pending Legislation

• HB 2766 (2026, died/legislature adjourned) – mandates DPS expunge DNA samples upon claimant proving an error in their substantive rights regarding past arrests or charges.
• HB 2102 (2022, died) – attempt to broaden arrestee collection to misdemeanors in addition to felonies.

Enhanced Budget Items

• Funding for Rapid DNA, see above.
  • Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office gets $600K grant for DNA machines to speed up investigations (2023)
  • https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2023/10/13/mcso-grants-federal-funds-to-purchase-dna-machines/71148326007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=false&gca-epti=z1165xxe1165xxv000047&gca-ft=197&gca-ds=sophi

Arrestees: Yes

Qualifying Crimes: Only specified arrests qualify: homicide and related offenses (Title 13, Ch. 11); enumerated sexual and child-exploitation offenses (A.R.S. §§ 13-1402 to 13-1406, 13-1410, 13-1411, 13-1417, 13-3208, 13-3214, 13-3555, 13-3608); burglary (§§ 13-1507, 13-1508); and any “serious offense” under § 13-706 that is a dangerous offense. See A.R.S. § 13-610(O)(3).

For Juveniles, a separate rule applies to DNA profile extraction before adjudication. Sample collection OK; profile analysis and upload not OK if pre-adjudication.

Time of Collection: Two tracks: when a person arrested for a qualifying offense is transferred by the arresting authority to a law enforcement agency or jail, the arresting authority secures the sample — i.e., at booking (§ 13-610(K)); a person charged with a qualifying offense who is summoned to an initial appearance instead must report and provide a sample within five days of release on bail or recognizance (§ 13-610(L)).

Expungement: Yes – by petition to the superior court in the county where the arrest occurred or the charge was filed, on any of three grounds: (1) charges were never filed within the limitations period of § 13-107, (2) the charges were dismissed, or (3) the person was acquitted at trial. The petition fails if the person has another arrest, charge, conviction, or delinquency adjudication that independently requires DNA testing. See A.R.S. § 13-610(M).

Convicted Offenders: Yes

Qualifying Crimes: Adults — every felony conviction (§ 13-610(O)(1)). Juveniles — adjudication of delinquency for: homicide offenses (Title 13, Ch. 11); felony sexual offenses (Ch. 14) or sexual exploitation of children (Ch. 35.1); burglary (§§ 13-1507, 13-1508); incest or child bigamy (§ 13-3608); any offense requiring sex offender registration (§ 13-3821); certain drug felonies prosecutable as adult offenses; and the violent felonies listed in § 13-501 (murder, forcible sexual assault, armed robbery, and other violent offenses). See § 13-610(O)(2).

Time of Collection: Within thirty days of the triggering event — sentencing to the state department of corrections, placement on probation (with or without county-jail time), juvenile detention or commitment, or arrival in Arizona for supervision under the interstate compact for parolees and probationers. See § 13-610(A)–(F).

Expungement: Yes – when a conviction or adjudication is overturned on appeal or in post-conviction relief and a final mandate has issued, the person may petition the superior court in the county of conviction, and the court must order the DNA profile expunged — unless a separate conviction or adjudication independently requires DNA testing. See § 13-610(J).

Statutes / Case Law

A.R.S. § 1 3- 6 1 0. DNA testing

Enacted via HB 2787, Laws 2007, Chapter 261 (47th Legislature, 1st Regular Session).

State v. Mitcham (2024) 559 P.3d 1099 (holding that extracting defendant’s DNA profile from blood collected during his prior arrest for DUI was a “search” requiring a warrant under the 4th Amendment; defendant did not consent to warrantless extraction of DNA profile via earlier consent to blood draw in DUI case; but “inevitable discovery exception” to exclusionary rule applied to preclude suppression of DNA profile.

Mario W. v. Kaipio, 230 Ariz. 113, 281 P.3d 476 (Ariz. 2012). This is the Arizona Supreme Court’s challenge to the exact juvenile-arrest statute we discussed (§ 8-238). Seven juveniles were charged with qualifying offenses, summoned to advisory hearings, and ordered to give buccal samples within five days. The court split the analysis into two separate searches:

Collection (the buccal swab): Constitutional. The court analogized it to fingerprinting — a minimal intrusion — and found a legitimate state interest in obtaining a sample before release in case the juvenile absconds (¶¶21–25).

Profile extraction (processing the sample into a CODIS DNA profile): Unconstitutional before adjudication. The court held there’s no sufficient government interest in extracting a profile from a not-yet-adjudicated juvenile, given the presumption of innocence; the swab can simply be held and processed later if the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent or fails to appear (¶¶26–32).

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013). SCOTUS upheld suspicion-less DNA collection and analysis from adult arrestees booked for serious offenses, treating it as a legitimate booking procedure like fingerprinting. This created obvious tension with Mario W.‘s second holding, since King effectively approved arrestee profiling that Mario W. forbade. Note King involved adults, not juveniles, and the Arizona scheme’s profiling timing was different.

State v. Mitcham (Ariz. 2024). The Arizona Supreme Court recently addressed whether King displaced Mario W. It held that King overruled Mario W. only to the extent Mario W. treated pre-adjudication processing as a Fourth Amendment violation, but Mario W.‘s core recognition that extracting a DNA profile is itself a separate “search” survived. The court reaffirmed that DNA profile extraction is a distinct Fourth Amendment “search.”

Legislative History

SB 1217, Ch. 235 — 21st Legislature, 1st Regular Session (1993). Created § 13-4438 (predecessor to § 13-610), requiring DNA collection from convicted sex offenders. Bill text is pre-digitization and not available online; confirmed in the azleg.gov session law index for Session 19 as “DNA testing of sexual offenders.”

SB 1353, Ch. 373 — 44th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session (2000). Expanded DNA collection beyond sex offenders. Added qualifying offenses in new § 13-4438(G): homicide/Chapter 11 offenses and burglary (§§ 13-1507, 13-1508) effective January 1, 2001; any offense involving deadly weapon or serious physical injury effective January 1, 2002. Also amended § 31-281 (DOC parallel statute) to match.

SB 1396, Ch. 226 — 45th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session (2002). The most consequential structural amendment. (a) Transferred and renumbered § 13-4438 → § 13-610; (b) repealed § 31-281; (c) added drug felonies (Chapter 34) effective January 1, 2003; (d) added all felony offenses effective January 1, 2004; (e) added expungement rights (subsections I–K); (f) added new DNA Identification System Fund appropriation ($2M).

SB 1332, Ch. 276 — 48th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session (2008). Added arrest-based DNA collection for the first time. Created § 13-610(K) (custodial arrest → buccal swab) and § 13-610(L) (summons to appear → ordered to submit sample) for specified serious and sex offenses, effective January 1, 2008. Added § 13-610(M) (expungement for arrest-based samples upon dismissal, acquittal, or non-filing). Also created § 8-238 (juvenile advisory hearing DNA).

SB 1367, Ch. 351 — 50th Legislature, 1st Regular Session (2011). Clarified that § 8-238 juvenile arrest-based samples are governed by § 13-610’s collection, analysis, use, maintenance, and expungement rules. Extended expungement rights to juvenile adjudications in § 13-610(J) and (M). Modified “serious offense” language in § 13-610(O)(3) and § 8-238 to align with § 13-706 definition.

See HB 2893 (2021) Below: Creating statutory framework for Rapid DNA.

Administering Entity

The Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) Crime Laboratory administers the state DNA database and contributes to CODIS.

• History and Use
  • Arizona was among early states to participate in Rapid DNA crime scene programs. The Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) was the first state agency in the nation to bring Rapid DNA online as an operational law enforcement program.
  • The Partner Site Model: Rather than keeping the Rapid DNA instruments solely locked inside central state labs, Arizona DPS also deploys Rapid DNA instruments directly to regional law enforcement hubs. Instruments are sent to regional law enforcement hubs.
• Laws
  • Statutory Framework (A.R.S. § 41-1772; HB 2182 (2021, died), but see HB 2893 (2021 budget bill, passed): The Arizona Legislature formalized and expanded the program via targeted funding. The law mandates that the Director of DPS prescribe exact administrative procedures for deploying these units, ensuring device accuracy and setting strict qualifications for operators.
  • Regulations – Arizona Administrative Code – Title 13. Public Safety, Chapter 15. Department of Public Safety – Rapid DNA
• Legislative History on Rapid DNA
  • The creation and funding of the Arizona Rapid DNA statutory framework (A.R.S. § 41-1772) was established through two parallel legislative actions during the 2021 session of the 55th Arizona State Legislature:
    • Representative John Kavanagh’s House Bill 2182 served as the policy blueprint for Arizona’s Rapid DNA program by proposing a statutory framework that directed the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) to establish operational procedures, verify device accuracy, and define operator qualifications. Although HB 2182 did not pass as a standalone measure, its key provisions—including the addition of A.R.S. § 41-1772—were incorporated into the Criminal Justice Budget Reconciliation Act (HB 2893/SB 1821), which ultimately enacted the law and appropriated initial state funding for DPS to purchase, deploy, and provide training on Rapid DNA technology to county sheriffs.

No Arizona statute specifically regulates FGG for law enforcement purposes.

Arizona law enforcement may use FGG under general investigative authority. Claims that AZ DPS uses familial searching as last resort (but not necessarily specifically authorized by statute).

For FGG, there are direct-to-consumer law(s) regulating this area. HB 2069 (2021, enacted) establishes strict privacy provisions over consumer genetic data. Must implement clear consent protocols. It has a Law Enforcement Clause, saying that the genetic testing company must require a valid legal process, such as search warrant or specific court order, in order to disclose any consumer genetic data to law enforcement or government agencies, unless that consumer has opted in via expressed consent.

Nothing found yet.

• SB 1796 (2026, died/legislature adjourned) – Arizona legislature now adjourned for the year) – DNA Match Tracking System