SB 733 creates a statutory “Sexual Assault Victims’ DNA Bill of Rights” that forces specific timelines on how law enforcement, medical facilities, and crime laboratories handle sexual assault forensic evidence (rape kits). The bill requires evidence to be submitted quickly (20 days or via a rapid‑turnaround program for direct medical-facility submission), sets maximum processing windows for labs, and clarifies when and how victims can receive status updates and access to the SAFE‑T portal.
The measure also fixes minimum retention periods for untested or unsolved kits (20 years or until a victim’s 40th birthday if the victim was a minor), preserves survivor choice to decline immediate testing, and narrows the legal remedy for agency noncompliance to a writ of mandamus. Those changes reallocate operational priorities for agencies and laboratories while balancing victim autonomy and public‑safety interests.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires law enforcement to submit sexual assault forensic evidence to a crime lab within 20 days of booking or to use a rapid turnaround program that moves evidence from the medical facility to the lab within five days. Requires crime labs to complete processing and, when possible, upload qualifying profiles into CODIS within 120 days or to transmit evidence to another lab within 30 days for processing.
Who It Affects
County and municipal law enforcement agencies that investigate sexual assaults, hospital sexual assault response teams and medical facilities that collect kits, public and private crime laboratories that process DNA evidence, prosecutors relying on forensic matches, and sexual assault victims and their advocates.
Why It Matters
The bill converts longstanding best practices and guidance into enforceable deadlines and retention rules, increasing pressure on crime labs and agencies to clear backlogs and prioritize rape kits. It also formalizes victim access to forensic-status information while limiting legal exposure for agencies to mandamus relief only.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 733 is structured around two operational goals: get rape kits into testing pipelines quickly, and keep survivors informed while preserving their right not to have their kit tested. For handling, the law forces two submission tracks: ordinary booking-to-lab submission (20 days) or a rapid‑turnaround program that can move evidence directly from the medical facility to the lab within five days.
On the lab side the statute sets a firm outer window—process and upload qualifying DNA profiles into CODIS within 120 days—or, if the receiving lab cannot complete testing, ship the evidence to another lab within 30 days for processing. The bill explicitly permits labs to test representative samples rather than every item in a kit and requires adherence to federal rules before uploading a profile to CODIS.
Victim-facing provisions are request‑driven: a victim may ask for status updates and must be told whether a profile was developed, whether it has been entered into state or federal databanks, and whether it produced a match to the Convicted Offender database, unless doing so would jeopardize an active probe. The measure also grants victims SAFE‑T portal access consistent with related statutory provisions and allows victims to name an advocate or support person to receive notifications on their behalf.On retention and survivor autonomy, SB 733 prevents destruction of evidence from unsolved cases for at least 20 years or until a former‑minor victim turns 40.
It requires written notice to victims at least 60 days before any planned destruction and obligates agencies to inform victims if testing will not occur within a timeframe that risks shortening the statute of limitations. Importantly, survivors can request at the time of examination that their kit not be tested; that decision pauses testing obligations but not the retention and notice rules, and survivors may later reverse their decision and request testing.The bill limits remedies available to victims for agency failures: a defendant cannot use a victim-notice failure to challenge a conviction, and the only civil or criminal recourse a victim has against an agency for failing to meet the statute’s notice or retention obligations is to seek a writ of mandamus compelling compliance with the notification and retention duties.
That narrow remedy aims to prevent evidence-based challenges to prosecutions while creating a court-enforcement path to compel agencies to follow the statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Law enforcement must submit sexual assault forensic evidence to a crime lab within 20 days of booking, or use a rapid‑turnaround program that sends evidence from the medical facility to the lab within five days.
A receiving crime lab must process evidence and upload qualifying DNA profiles into CODIS within 120 days, or transmit the evidence to another lab within 30 days for processing and, if a profile is produced, upload it within 30 days of notification.
Labs are only required to test representative samples of a kit (not every item), and profiles may be uploaded to CODIS only if they meet federal uploading guidelines.
Unsolved sexual assault evidence cannot be destroyed for at least 20 years, or until the victim’s 40th birthday if the victim was under 18 at the time of the alleged offense, with written notice to the victim at least 60 days before destruction.
The statute limits a victim’s remedy for agency noncompliance to seeking a writ of mandamus; defendants may not use a victim notification or rights failure to attack a conviction or sentence.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Name and legislative findings
Subsections (a) and (b) create the “Sexual Assault Victims’ DNA Bill of Rights” and compile findings about DNA’s role in sexual assault prosecutions, databank growth, victims’ interests, and the need for timely analysis. Practically, this frames the rest of the statute as victim‑centered and public‑safety oriented, which agencies and courts will use to interpret duties and prioritize kit processing.
Submission and lab-processing timelines (20/5/120/30 days)
Subdivision (c) establishes the core operational deadlines: law enforcement must submit kits within 20 days of booking, or implement a written rapid‑turnaround program to move evidence from the medical facility to the lab within five days. For labs, the statute mandates processing and CODIS upload within 120 days or, if unable, forwarding the kit to another lab within 30 days for DNA detection; if the initial lab finds DNA after transfer it must upload within 30 days of notification. The section also clarifies that representative sampling suffices and that CODIS upload remains subject to federal standards—meaning some profiles will not qualify for entry.
Victim notification rights and SAFE‑T portal access
Subdivision (d) makes victim status requests actionable: upon request, agencies must inform victims about testing status, existence of an assailant profile, databank entry, and confirmed matches to the Convicted Offender database, barring impairment of an active investigation. It also gives victims the right to access the DOJ SAFE‑T portal for their kit’s status, and permits agencies to require written requests at their discretion while obligating agencies to respond by phone, mail, or email if available.
Notice when testing risks statute of limitations and destruction rules
Subdivision (e) requires agencies to tell victims if their kit will not be analyzed within six months of the statute‑of‑limitations cutoff referenced in Section 803(g)(1). Subdivisions (f) and (g) govern evidence destruction: agencies must provide written notice before destroying unsolved‑case kits, must retain kits at least 20 years—or until a victim’s 40th birthday for offenses committed against minors—and give at least 60 days’ written notice prior to destruction. Those timelines are designed to preserve prosecutorial options and give survivors time to request testing.
Survivor choice, designees, and transport exceptions
Subdivision (h) allows survivors to designate an advocate or support person to receive notifications, and it gives adult survivors the right at the time of exam to request that their kit not be tested. A kit withheld from testing remains subject to retention and destruction-notice rules; survivors may later ask for testing. The provision also clarifies that a lab’s intake or secure-transport receipts do not count as submission for testing so long as transfer is documented in the chain of custody or a state tracking system.
Administrative duties, defendant standing, and limited remedies
Subdivision (i) places a practical duty on victims to keep their contact information current for notice eligibility and asks agencies to provide timely updates. Subsection (j) prevents defendants from asserting victims’ notice failures to overturn convictions. Subsection (k) narrows victims’ recourse against agencies to seeking a writ of mandamus to compel compliance with notification and retention duties—excluding damages or criminal penalties—so enforcement falls to judicial compulsion rather than private civil remedies.
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
- Sexual assault victims and survivors — get statutory rights to status updates, SAFE‑T portal access, advance notice before destruction of kits, and the ability to designate an advocate to receive information.
- Prosecutors and public-safety officials — benefit from enforced retention minimums and timelines designed to preserve evidence and extend the practical statute of limitations window for charges and DNA matches.
- Victim advocates and sexual assault response teams — gain clearer legal authority to receive notifications and to coordinate with healthcare providers and law enforcement around rapid‑turnaround agreements.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local law enforcement agencies — must implement submission deadlines, negotiate rapid‑turnaround agreements with medical facilities and labs, and manage additional notification and recordkeeping duties.
- Crime laboratories — face pressure to meet 120‑day processing windows or transfer kits within 30 days, potentially requiring overtime, staffing increases, or outsourcing contracts.
- Medical facilities and sexual assault nurse examiner programs — must participate in rapid‑turnaround programs, document transfers carefully, and handle survivor requests to delay testing while maintaining chain‑of‑custody and storage.
- Counties and state budgets — may absorb increased storage costs for longer kit retention and pay for expanded lab capacity or interlab transfers, shifting fiscal burdens to public entities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against one another: ensuring timely processing and long preservation of sexual assault evidence to maximize public safety and prosecutorial options, while protecting survivor autonomy and limiting litigation exposure for agencies. Achieving both requires operational capacity, clear implementation rules, and careful balancing of privacy, storage costs, and investigatory needs—and the statute offers mandates but little funding or detailed operational guidance to resolve that trade‑off.
SB 733 converts operational best practices into enforceable deadlines without providing targeted funding or detailed enforcement mechanisms. The 120‑day processing target and the 20/5‑day submission windows assume laboratory capacity that many jurisdictions currently lack; the statutory transfer option mitigates that risk but shifts the burden and complexity to interlab logistics and contracts.
The law’s allowance for representative sampling reduces lab workload, but “representative” is an inherently case‑specific judgment that could lead to inconsistent practices across counties and to disputes about whether an item should have been tested.
The bill preserves survivor autonomy by allowing immediate refusals for testing, yet couples that right with long mandatory retention periods and strict notice obligations. That raises complex privacy and resource questions: agencies must store untested kits for decades while ensuring chain‑of‑custody and confidentiality.
The narrow remedy—writ of mandamus—gives victims a path to compel agency action but no damages or other civil relief, which minimizes legal exposure for agencies but leaves victims without a compensatory remedy if agencies repeatedly fail. Finally, several operative terms and triggers—such as “as soon as practically possible,” the exact interaction with Section 803’s statute‑of‑limitations cutoffs, and the SAFE‑T portal’s technical rollout—are left to implementing guidance, increasing the chance of uneven application and litigation over interpretation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.