Kentucky House Passes HB 414 to Collect DNA at Felony Arrest

Bill would require DNA samples during booking, upload profiles to CODIS, and destroy records if no felony conviction occurs

Feb 23, 2026

On the House floor this week, lawmakers voted to pass HB 414, a bill that would require law enforcement agencies across Kentucky to collect a DNA sample from anyone arrested for a felony at the time of booking. The sample would be analyzed and uploaded to the Combined DNA Index System, commonly known as CODIS, the FBI-managed database that allows participating jurisdictions to compare genetic profiles from arrestees, convicted offenders, and crime scenes.

The bill now moves to the Senate.

What changed in that vote was not a penalty range or a sentencing guideline. It was the point in the process when the state may take and permanently index a person’s genetic material.

The House floor vote on HB 414

HB 414 cleared the Kentucky House after committee consideration and floor debate focused on public safety and investigative efficiency. The bill amends Kentucky’s existing DNA collection statute, KRS 17.170, which currently authorizes DNA collection from individuals convicted of certain offenses.

Under the version approved by the House, the Kentucky State Police would receive, process, and maintain DNA samples taken from individuals arrested for a felony offense. The sample would be collected during booking, alongside fingerprints and photographs, and sent to the Kentucky State Police forensic laboratory for analysis. The resulting DNA profile would then be uploaded into CODIS, a system governed by federal regulations at 34 U.S.C. § 12592 and implemented through FBI operational rules.

The bill includes a provision directing that the physical sample be destroyed and the DNA record expunged if the person is not convicted of a felony. That expungement would not occur automatically in all cases; it would require documentation that the case resulted in acquittal, dismissal, or reduction below the felony level, and the relevant agencies would need to act on that record.

If enacted, HB 414 would shift Kentucky from a post-conviction DNA state to a post-arrest DNA state.

KRS 17.170 and the shift from conviction to arrest

Kentucky’s current statute, KRS 17.170, authorizes DNA collection from individuals convicted of felony offenses and certain misdemeanors. Collection typically occurs after conviction, often during intake into the Department of Corrections. The statute also outlines how the Kentucky State Police maintain the database and share qualifying profiles with CODIS.

HB 414 would amend that statute to require DNA collection at the time of arrest for any felony charge. Arrest is a threshold far earlier in the criminal legal process than conviction. An arrest can occur based on probable cause, a grand jury indictment, or a warrant issued by a judge. Charges may later be dismissed, amended, or result in acquittal.

Under the House-passed language, local jail staff would collect the sample during booking. That includes county detention centers across the Commonwealth, from Oldham County to Jefferson County to rural jails that contract with the state for housing inmates. The Kentucky Department of Corrections sets booking standards, but county jailers are independently elected constitutional officers under Section 99 of the Kentucky Constitution and operate their facilities under KRS Chapter 71.

The Kentucky State Police forensic laboratory would analyze the sample and generate a DNA profile. That profile would be eligible for upload to CODIS, where it could be compared against unsolved crime scene evidence nationally.

The change is procedural but substantial. The legal status of the individual at booking is “charged,” not “convicted.” HB 414 moves biometric collection into that earlier stage.

Booking procedures in county detention centers

Booking in Kentucky typically includes fingerprinting, photographing, inventorying personal property, and entering identifying information into a jail management system. Many jails already participate in fingerprint submission to the Kentucky State Police and the FBI through the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Those prints can generate immediate matches to outstanding warrants or prior records.

HB 414 would add DNA swabbing to that intake process for felony arrests. The collection method described in similar statutes in other states involves a buccal swab, a cotton swab rubbed inside the cheek to collect epithelial cells. The sample is labeled, logged, and sent to the state lab.

The Kentucky State Police forensic laboratory in Frankfort currently processes DNA evidence for criminal investigations. Adding arrestee samples would increase intake volume. The bill’s fiscal note would need to account for lab staffing, equipment, and backlog management. CODIS participation also requires compliance with FBI quality assurance standards and auditing protocols.

The destruction provision in HB 414 directs that if a person is not convicted of a felony, the sample and resulting profile must be removed from the database. That requires communication between courts, prosecutors, jail administrators, and the Kentucky State Police. Circuit clerks would enter final dispositions into the court record. The expungement process would depend on those records being transmitted and acted upon accurately.

This means the practical operation of the bill would rely on coordination between county detention centers, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Kentucky State Police, and local prosecutors.

CODIS upload authority and federal rules

CODIS is governed by federal law at 34 U.S.C. § 12592 and by FBI operational manuals that set eligibility standards for uploaded profiles. States that collect DNA from arrestees are permitted to upload qualifying profiles, provided they meet laboratory and legal requirements.

Kentucky already participates in CODIS for convicted offenders and crime scene evidence. HB 414 would expand the category of eligible profiles to include felony arrestees. Once uploaded, a profile can be searched against other profiles nationwide.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of DNA collection at arrest in Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013). In that case, the Court upheld a Maryland statute authorizing DNA collection from individuals arrested for serious offenses, concluding that it was a legitimate booking procedure comparable to fingerprinting. That decision provides the legal backdrop for state legislation like HB 414.

However, the Court’s reasoning assumed statutory safeguards, including limits on the types of offenses covered and procedures for expungement if charges did not result in conviction. Kentucky’s bill mirrors that model in part by limiting collection to felony arrests and including a destruction clause.

The operational question is how that destruction clause functions in practice. CODIS rules require states to remove profiles when they no longer meet eligibility criteria. That removal must be documented and verifiable during audits.

Share this with someone tracking criminal justice policy in Kentucky.

Two recent expansions under a “public safety” rationale

HB 414 fits within a broader pattern of expanding data collection authority under public safety legislation. In recent years, Kentucky lawmakers have enacted measures increasing information sharing between agencies and expanding investigative tools available at earlier stages of a case.

One example is the continued expansion of electronic monitoring and pretrial supervision reporting requirements under KRS Chapter 431. Another is statutory amendments allowing broader sharing of certain criminal justice data between state and federal partners, particularly in the context of violent crime task forces.

HB 414 extends that trajectory by moving DNA collection to the point of arrest. Supporters argue that earlier collection can help solve cold cases more quickly and identify suspects across jurisdictions. Opponents raise questions about the scope of biometric databasing and the administrative burden of ensuring accurate removal for individuals who are not convicted.

The House vote placed Kentucky among the states that authorize DNA collection at arrest rather than waiting for conviction. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than half of states permit some form of arrestee DNA collection. Kentucky would join that group if the Senate concurs and the Governor signs the bill.

What changes for Kentuckians at first contact with the system

For an individual arrested on a felony charge in Kentucky, the booking process would include DNA swabbing in addition to fingerprinting and photographing. The resulting profile could be searched against national crime scene databases before any trial or plea.

If the case ends without a felony conviction, the statute directs removal of the profile and destruction of the sample. That removal would depend on timely notification and administrative compliance.

County detention centers would need to train staff, update intake protocols, and coordinate sample transport. The Kentucky State Police would need to manage increased laboratory throughput and maintain CODIS compliance.

From a procedural standpoint, the key shift is the timing of biometric collection. The authority to collect DNA would attach at arrest, based on probable cause, rather than at conviction.

What happens next in the Senate

HB 414 now moves to the Kentucky Senate for committee assignment and possible floor vote. The Senate Judiciary Committee would likely hear the bill first, where members can propose amendments addressing expungement procedures, funding, or implementation timelines.

If the Senate passes the bill without changes, it would proceed to the Governor for signature or veto. If amended, it would return to the House for concurrence.

If enacted, state agencies would need to promulgate or update administrative regulations detailing sample handling, documentation requirements, and expungement processes. County jailers would receive guidance from the Department of Corrections and the Kentucky Jailers Association on implementation timelines.

The next decision point is the Senate committee vote. That vote will determine whether Kentucky formally shifts DNA collection from post-conviction to post-arrest.

Dispatches from Kentucky

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?