Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1372 (2026)

Biological evidence preservation – Definitions

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A criminal justice agency having possession or custody of biological evidence from a violent felony offense, as defined by subsection F of Section 982 of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, shall retain and preserve that biological evidence for such period of time as any individual convicted of that crime remains incarcerated. B. As used in this section: 1. "Biological evidence" means physical evidentiary material originating from the human body from which a nuclear DNA profile or mitochondrial DNA sequence can be obtained or representative or derivative samples of such physical evidentiary material collected by a forensic DNA laboratory; and 2. "DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid. C. The criminal justice agency in possession or custody of biological evidence may destroy or otherwise dispose of the biological evidence before the expiration of the period of time described in subsection A of this section only if: 1. The agency notifies any person who remains incarcerated in connection with the case, the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System DNA Forensic Testing Program if still applicable, and any counsel of record or public defender organization for the judicial district in which the judgment of conviction for such person was entered, of: a. the intention of the agency to destroy the evidence, and b. the provisions of the DNA Forensic Testing Act, if still applicable; 2. No person submits a written objection to the destruction of the biological evidence to the agency within ninety (90) days of receiving notice pursuant to paragraph 1 of this subsection; and 3. No other provision of law requires that such biological evidence be preserved. Added by Laws 2001, c. 52, § 1, eff. July 1, 2001.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Dowdell v. State, 854 So. 2d 1195 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002).
Dowdell v. State, 854 So. 2d 1195 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). “§ 15A-268 through -270 (2001); Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1371.1 (2000); Okla.”
Smith v. Jordan, No. 4:24-cv-00411 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 8, 2025). · cites it 2× “Smith alleges his procedural due process rights were violated when his DNA evidence was destroyed without notice in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1372 (C)(1)-(3). See zd.”
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.