WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SJR 21

DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY OF THE AUTOMATIC STORAGE OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.

153rd General Assembly (2025-2026) Introduced by Bill Bush and 2 co-sponsors

Direct the Delaware DSHS to study the feasibility, including technical, financial, legal, and policy aspects, of automatically storing biological evidence.

Passed By House. Votes: 36 YES 1 NO 4 ABSENT
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SJR 21

Bill Overview

  • Bill: SJR 21 (Senate Joint Resolution)
  • Session/Jurisdiction: Delaware, Session 153
  • Title / Purpose: DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY OF THE AUTOMATIC STORAGE OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
  • Status: Introduced and assigned to the Executive Committee in the Senate (as of 2026-06-17)
  • Sponsors:
    • Primary sponsors not listed
    • Co-sponsors: Kyra Hoffner, Bill Bush

What the Bill Seeks to Do

  • The resolution directs a study by the Department of Safety and Homeland Security (DSHS) to assess whether biological evidence collected by law enforcement should be automatically stored.
  • The study is intended to evaluate the feasibility, including practical, financial, legal, and policy considerations, of implementing automatic storage of biological evidence.

Key Provisions and Considerations

  • Directive to Agency: The DSHS is charged with conducting a comprehensive feasibility study. The resolution does not itself create a new storage regime, but requires an analysis to determine if automatic storage is viable.
  • Scope of Study (as typically implied in such resolutions):
    • Technical feasibility: capacity, infrastructure, and system requirements for automatic storage.
    • Financial feasibility: costs, funding sources, ongoing maintenance, and potential cost savings or burdens.
    • Legal and policy implications: chain of custody, privacy considerations, retention timelines, compliance with existing laws, and any required statutory or regulatory changes.
    • Operational considerations: personnel needs, workflow integration, data management, and security.
    • Public safety impact: whether automatic storage would improve evidence integrity, case outcomes, or crime-solving capabilities.
  • Deliverables: The resolution will likely require a formal report or findings submission to the General Assembly or relevant oversight bodies, outlining conclusions and recommended next steps (e.g., policy changes, pilot programs, funding requests).

Who Would Be Affected

  • State Agencies Involved:
    • Department of Safety and Homeland Security (lead agency for the study).
    • Law enforcement agencies that collect biological evidence (e.g., DNA, blood, tissue, swabs) and currently manage storage.
  • Public Sector Stakeholders:
    • Delaware judiciary and prosecutors who rely on evidence in cases.
    • Potential oversight or legislative committees reviewing the study and any resulting legislation or budgetary requests.
  • General Public:
    • Impacts depend on the study’s outcomes; potential future policy could affect evidence handling standards, privacy protections, and funding allocations for storage systems.

Procedural and Timeline Notes

  • Procedural Role: As a joint resolution directing a study, it primarily sets a mandate for the executive branch to investigate rather than enact immediate statutory changes.
  • Timelines: The resolution will specify a deadline for the Department to complete the feasibility study and submit a report. The exact timeline is not provided in the available information.
  • Next Steps: After the study, the legislature may consider adopting legislation or appropriations based on the findings, or may direct further action (pilot programs, rulemaking, or policy updates).

Potential Impact and Significance

  • If the study finds automatic storage feasible and advantageous, it could lead to:
    • Enhanced integrity and accessibility of biological evidence.
    • Standardized retention practices across agencies.
    • Potential funding needs for storage infrastructure, data management, and security.
  • If deemed infeasible or high-risk, the study could recommend alternative approaches (e.g., automated triggers for selective storage, improved tracking, or updated retention policies).

This summary provides an accessible snapshot of SJR 21’s intent, scope, and potential implications based on the information available. Further details would materialize from the study methodology and the eventual report produced by the Department of Safety and Homeland Security.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.