AB 2018 requires the California Department of Justice to build and operate a CODIS‑compatible DNA database dedicated to identifying unidentified deceased persons and “high‑risk” missing persons. The bill mandates coroners to collect samples from unidentified remains, authorizes law enforcement to take voluntary samples from relatives or personal items, creates standards for sample storage and handling, and allows the DOJ to use additional scientifically valid DNA methods when necessary.
The measure sets strict limits on use and disclosure, requires destruction of donor samples after identification subject to enumerated exceptions, creates civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure or failure to destroy samples, and grants the department certain immunities. For coroners, local law enforcement, forensic labs, and families of missing persons, the bill changes who collects, stores, and controls sensitive genetic material — and under what rules it may be shared or retained.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the California DOJ to create a DNA database composed of identification‑only genetic markers compatible with the FBI’s CODIS system, to be used solely to identify unidentified remains and locate high‑risk missing persons. It requires coroners to collect samples from unidentified remains, allows voluntary family sampling and personal‑item sampling, and mandates DOJ comparison and inclusion in the database.
Who It Affects
County coroners and medical examiners, local law enforcement agencies investigating high‑risk missing persons, the California DOJ DNA laboratory, relatives of missing persons who may be asked to provide samples, and any non‑department entities that collaborate on DNA testing or comparisons.
Why It Matters
The bill centralizes forensic identity work under the DOJ, standardizes collection and retention practices, and creates new privacy and liability rules that will shape investigative practice and family expectations. Forensics operations, public‑records counsel, and compliance officers will need to implement new protocols and assess data‑sharing and retention risks.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2018 builds a state‑level DNA resource focused solely on identification. The department must pick genetic markers that identify individuals but do not reveal biological traits beyond gender; those markers must produce profiles compatible with the FBI’s CODIS system.
The statute expressly separates this new database from an existing database created under another statutory chapter and limits the database’s sole purpose to identifying missing or unidentified people.
The bill requires coroners to collect DNA from all unidentified remains and to send those samples to the DOJ for testing; the DOJ will compare remains samples against DNA taken from personal articles, or against voluntary samples provided by parents or other relatives of high‑risk missing persons. The law defines “high‑risk” by circumstances — stranger abduction, suspicious or unknown circumstances, or a reasonable belief the person is in danger — and establishes a 30‑day baseline after which law enforcement should submit family samples to the department (with discretion to submit sooner).Beyond standard CODIS testing, the department may use other scientifically valid DNA methods and share genetic data with outside entities if doing so furthers identification; when sharing occurs, the department must take reasonable steps to ensure recipients use the data only to locate or identify the missing person.
The DOJ must also create standards for preservation and storage addressing DNA, anthropology, odontology, and fingerprints, and it must supply a model kit and standard release form for relatives who voluntarily give samples.The bill restricts use and disclosure of samples and profiles: access is limited to DOJ personnel, law enforcement, coroners, medical examiners, district attorneys, approved collaborators, and parties in criminal proceedings. It requires destruction of samples and profiles provided by living persons after positive identification — with enumerated exceptions (e.g., suspected criminal death, active investigations, statutory retention requirements, or incomplete remains).
Donors may request removal of their samples. Unauthorized disclosure is a misdemeanor; certain disclosure/destruction failures create a $5,000 civil penalty per violation plus fees.
The law also declares the department liable for employee disclosures while granting the individual employee absolute immunity and treating the statutory remedy as exclusive.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a “high‑risk missing person” by circumstance (stranger abduction, suspicious or unknown circumstances, or reasonable belief of danger) and sets a 30‑day threshold after which law enforcement must submit voluntary family samples to DOJ, though agencies may act sooner at their discretion.
DNA markers used in the database must be identification‑only (no predictive biological function apart from gender), must be compatible with FBI CODIS, and may be updated as typing technology changes.
Coroners must collect DNA from all unidentified remains and send samples to DOJ; after DOJ completes testing, remaining evidence must be returned to the local coroner.
Donor samples and profiles taken from living persons are to be destroyed after a positive identification unless one of several exceptions applies (suspected criminal death, active criminal investigation, statutory retention, or expectation of additional remains); donors may also request removal of their sample from the database.
The statute creates criminal and civil enforcement: unauthorized disclosure of DNA/profile data is a misdemeanor, failures to destroy or improper disclosure expose the collector/processor to $5,000 per violation plus attorney fees, the department is vicariously liable for employee disclosures, but departmental employees are granted absolute civil immunity and the statutory remedy is the donor’s exclusive remedy against the department.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a CODIS‑compatible, identification‑only DNA database
These paragraphs direct the DOJ to develop a DNA database used exclusively to identify unidentified deceased persons and high‑risk missing persons. The department must select genetic markers that identify individuals but do not predict biological traits beyond gender, and the results must be compatible with the FBI’s CODIS. The statute also requires the database to remain distinct from an existing database set out elsewhere in statute, limiting cross‑use and signaling a narrow statutory purpose.
Comparison procedures, other testing methods, and high‑risk definition
The DOJ will compare DNA from unidentified remains to samples from personal articles or to family reference samples. The bill explicitly authorizes the department to use other scientifically valid DNA testing methods beyond CODIS matching when doing so increases the chance of identification, but it conditions outside sharing on taking reasonable steps to limit use to identification purposes. The law provides a fact‑based definition of “high‑risk missing person” and sets a default 30‑day period before involuntary submission, preserving investigative discretion for urgent cases.
Collection, storage standards, coroner duties, and procedural kits/forms
The department must develop standards and guidelines for preserving and storing DNA samples and other forensic materials; agencies required to collect samples must follow those standards. Coroners have a mandatory duty to collect DNA from all unidentified remains and forward samples to DOJ. The department must also produce a standard release form and a model sampling kit for relatives, and law enforcement must reverify missing‑person status before submitting samples. These provisions force local offices to conform to state protocols and give the DOJ operational control over collection quality.
Retention, destruction, and donor removal rights
Samples and profiles developed from living donors are intended solely for identification and must be destroyed after a positive identification unless specified exceptions apply — for example, a coroner or agency suspects criminal conduct, the evidence is needed for an active criminal investigation, a separate statute requires retention, or more remains are expected. Donors (including parents or guardians) can request removal of their sample and profile from the database. This creates a default privacy protection while carving out law‑enforcement and statutory exceptions.
Confidentiality, disclosure rules, penalties, immunity, and system security
The statute tightly circumscribes who may access DNA samples and profiles — DOJ personnel, law enforcement, coroners, medical examiners, district attorneys, approved collaborators, and participants in criminal proceedings — and makes the data exempt from public records laws. Unauthorized disclosure is a misdemeanor; wrongful retention or disclosure by collectors/processors carries civil liability of $5,000 per violation plus fees. The department is liable for employee misconduct, but individual employees receive absolute civil immunity and the statutory remedy is exclusive. Finally, the law treats DOJ DNA lab software and database structures as confidential to protect system security.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Families of missing persons — Gain a centralized, DOJ‑managed pathway for identification with a clear process for voluntary sampling, a model kit and release form, and a statutory right to request removal of their sample after identification.
- Local coroners and medical examiners — Receive standardized specimen‑handling rules and a single state lab to perform CODIS‑compatible testing, which can streamline identification work and reduce local analytic burdens.
- Investigating law enforcement agencies — Acquire a state‑run database and broader authority to use non‑CODIS scientific methods and approved data sharing to improve match rates and close cases faster.
- California DOJ forensic laboratory — Gains an operational mandate and central role in missing‑person identifications, increasing its relevance and control over statewide standards and protocols.
Who Bears the Cost
- County coroners and medical examiner offices — Must collect and ship samples per new state standards, adopt the model kit, and manage chain‑of‑custody and return of evidence; smaller offices may face training and equipment costs.
- California DOJ — Must build, operate, secure, and maintain a new CODIS‑compatible database, develop standards and forms, vet collaborators, and shoulder vicarious liability for employee disclosures.
- Relatives who provide voluntary samples — Face privacy risks from retention exceptions and any necessary sharing with external entities; they must rely on DOJ safeguards and statutes for protection.
- Collaborating non‑department labs and agencies — May be subject to restrictive sharing conditions and face civil liability exposure if they fail to follow destruction or disclosure rules.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks to maximize identifications by centralizing collection, permitting targeted sharing, and allowing retention in some investigations, while simultaneously promising narrow, privacy‑respecting use and donor control — a trade‑off between investigative effectiveness and individual genetic privacy that implementation choices (sharing agreements, retention decisions, immunity rules) will ultimately determine.
AB 2018 attempts to thread the needle between solving missing‑person cases and protecting donor privacy, but several implementation questions and tension points remain. The bill authorizes sharing genetic data with non‑department entities so long as DOJ takes “reasonable steps” to limit use to identification; that standard is vague and will place significant compliance burdens on DOJ to vet recipients, draft agreements, and monitor downstream use.
Likewise, making software and database structures confidential helps security but limits independent oversight of system integrity and access controls.
The retention exceptions are another pressure point. The statute requires destruction after identification but lists broad exceptions — suspected criminal death, active investigations, statutory retention requirements, and incomplete remains — that can keep donor material in government hands.
Paired with absolute civil immunity for employees and an exclusive remedy provision, the enforcement architecture may leave donors with limited practical recourse if retention or disclosure occurs improperly. Finally, the discretionary 30‑day rule for submission of family samples invites uneven local practice: agencies may vary in how quickly they inform relatives or in how they exercise the discretion to submit samples sooner, producing inconsistent protections and identification timelines across counties.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.