Texas House Bill HB3147

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/10/11
• Refer: 3/18/11

Caption

Relating to the collection, analysis, and preservation of sexual assault or DNA evidence.

Impact

The bill impacts state laws by amending the Government Code to set specific protocols for the submission and analysis of sexual assault evidence. Notable provisions include requirements for law enforcement agencies to submit evidence within ten days and for accredited laboratories to complete analyses within ninety days, promoting accountability and expediting justice for survivors. The bill also introduces strict guidelines on maintaining the chain of custody of physical evidence, which is crucial for the integrity of criminal investigations.

Summary

House Bill 3147 focuses on improving the processes surrounding the collection, analysis, and preservation of sexual assault and DNA evidence in Texas. It aims to enhance the efficiency of evidence handling by mandating law enforcement agencies to submit collected sexual assault evidence to accredited crime laboratories within a specified time frame. Additionally, it allows for forensic medical examinations to be conducted by qualified sexual assault nurse examiners without the need for a physician's presence, streamlining the process for victims seeking care and ensuring timely evidence collection.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 3147 is largely supportive, particularly among advocates for sexual assault survivors who see it as a necessary step towards accountability in the handling of sensitive evidence. The expedited processing of evidence and the emphasis on consent for disclosure are viewed positively by stakeholders. However, some concerns have been raised about the potential pressure this bill might place on already burdened law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories, highlighting the need for adequate funding and resources to implement these standards effectively.

Contention

While the bill has garnered general support, points of contention involve the practicalities of implementation, specifically concerning resource allocation and the potential backlog in crime labs. Critics argue that without sufficient funding and staffing, the ambitious timelines set for evidence analysis may not be feasible. Furthermore, the requirement for written consent for the release of evidence may raise concerns regarding the confidentiality and rights of survivors, with the fear that it could complicate prosecutions or discourage victims from coming forward.