§
Subdivision 1.Definition.
As used in this section, "DNA analysis" means the process through which deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in a human biological specimen is analyzed and compared with DNA from another human biological specimen for identification purposes.
§
Subd. 2.Uniform evidence collection.
The bureau shall develop uniform procedures and protocols for collecting evidence in cases of alleged or suspected criminal sexual conduct, including procedures and protocols for the collection and preservation of human biological specimens for DNA analysis. Law enforcement agencies and medical personnel who conduct evidentiary exams shall use the uniform procedures and protocols in their investigation of criminal sexual conduct offenses. The uniform procedures and protocols developed under this subdivision are not subject to the rulemaking provisions of chapter 14.
§
Subd. 3.DNA analysis and data bank.
The bureau shall adopt uniform procedures and protocols to maintain, preserve, and analyze human biological specimens for DNA. The bureau shall establish a centralized system to cross-reference data obtained from DNA analysis. Data contained on the bureau's centralized system is private data on individuals, as that term is defined in section 13.02. The bureau's centralized system may only be accessed by authorized law enforcement personnel and used solely for law enforcement identification purposes. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to a violation of this subdivision. The uniform procedures and protocols developed under this subdivision are not subject to the rulemaking provisions of chapter 14.
§
Subd. 4.Record.
The bureau shall perform DNA analysis and make data obtained available to law enforcement officials in connection with criminal investigations in which human biological specimens have been recovered. Upon request, the bureau shall also make the data available to the prosecutor and the subject of the data in any subsequent criminal prosecution of the subject. The results of the bureau's DNA analysis and related records are private data on individuals, as that term is defined in section 13.02, and may only be used for law enforcement identification purposes. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to a violation of this subdivision.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case:
State v. Johnson, 813 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2012).
State v. Johnson, 813 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 20× “” Minn.Stat. § 299C.155, subd. 1 (2010). Thus, the term “DNA analysis” is expressly limited to the collection and analysis of a biological sample for identification purposes.”
In re the Welfare of M.L.M., 813 N.W.2d 26 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 26× “” Minn.Stat. § 299C.155, subd. 1 (2010). Thus, the term “DNA analysis” is expressly limited to the collection and analysis of a biological sample for identification purposes.”
State v. Schwartz, 447 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1989).
· cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 299C.155, subds. 2, 3 (Supp.”
In Re Welfare of C.T.L., 722 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 299C.155, subd. 1 (Supp. 2005), defines “DNA analysis” as “the process through which deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in a human biological specimen is analyzed and compared with DNA from another human biological specimen for identification purposes.”
State v. Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d 8 (Minn. 2008).
· cites it 2× “117 provided that [t]he court shall order an offender to provide a biological specimen for the purpose of DNA analysis as defined in section 299C.155 when: (1) the court sentences a person charged with violating or attempting to violate any of the following, and the person is…”
In Re the Welfare of Z.P.B., 474 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 10× “3461 (1990), the state moved the juvenile court to order appellant to provide a blood sample to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) for DNA analysis under Minn. Stat. § 299C.155 (1990). When the motion was heard, the BCA had not yet adopted uniform procedures and…”
Kruger v. Erickson, 875 F. Supp. 583 (D. Minnesota 1995).
· cites it 2× “Taking blood in this manner did not amount to "the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.”
Kruger v. Erickson, 875 F. Supp. 583 (D. Minnesota 1995).
· cites it 2× “Taking blood in this manner did not amount to “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.”
Daniel v. Honeywell Int'l Inc. (D. Minnesota 2023).
· cites it 4× “; (13) a claim under a Minnesota statute governing the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s collection and analysis of DNA evidence, Minn. Stat. § 299C.155, id.; (14) a claim of “unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)[,]” id.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.