Texas Senate Bill SB1636

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of Senate Committee: 4/28/11
• Introduced: 3/11/11
• Voted on by Senate: 5/5/11
• Refer: 3/23/11
• Out of House Committee: 5/20/11
• Report Pass: 4/28/11
• Voted on by House: 5/23/11
• Engrossed: 5/5/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Refer: 5/9/11
• Report Pass: 5/17/11
• Report Pass: 5/18/11
• Enrolled: 5/27/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

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

Impact

This legislation has significant implications for state laws governing sexual assault cases and evidence handling. By mandating timely submission of evidence for analysis and improving procedural standards, SB1636 aims to expedite the investigatory processes in sexual assault cases. This is particularly relevant given the backlog of untested sexual assault kits that have historically plagued law enforcement agencies. The bill also places a stronger emphasis on the rights of victims, requiring that any release of evidence linked to their case obtain written consent, thereby protecting their privacy and ensuring their agency in the judicial process.

Summary

SB1636 aims to enhance the protocols surrounding the collection, analysis, and preservation of sexual assault and related DNA evidence in Texas. The bill introduces new definitions and procedures for managing such evidence, requiring law enforcement agencies to submit sexual assault evidence to accredited crime laboratories for analysis within a specified timeframe. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining a chain of custody for evidence, from collection to destruction, in order to ensure the integrity of the evidence throughout the criminal justice process. Additionally, the bill establishes guidelines for the analysis of sexual assault evidence in the context of active criminal cases.

Contention

While SB1636 is largely viewed as a positive step towards addressing sexual assault cases, there may be points of contention regarding resource allocations for increased analysis demands on crime laboratories. Additionally, concerns may arise from the implementation of these new procedures, particularly how they will affect law enforcement agencies and their existing operations. Critics might argue about the feasibility of immediate compliance with submission timelines and potential financial burdens without additional state funding or resources to support the mandated changes.