A measure introduced by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird requiring DNA samples to be taken from people arrested on felony or violent aggravated misdemeanor charges — before they are convicted of the crime — passed the Iowa House Tuesday.

Current Iowa law only requires DNA to be collected from people convicted of a crime. House File 2624 expands this requirement to criminal defendants facing certain charges.

While the initial proposal would have required individuals charged with any felony or aggravated misdemeanor have DNA samples taken, the House amended the bill to state only those facing violent aggravated misdemeanor charges would be subject to the requirement. While the sample would be taken prior to a conviction, the bill would require the state to expunge the DNA record of a person within 30 days if they are acquitted, if the charges are resolved or dismissed, or if a case is not filed within a year.

Introduced by the AG’s office before the 2026 session, the bill was modeled on “Katie’s Law” first passed in New Mexico and adopted by several other states.

Rep. Bill Gustoff, R-Des Moines, linked the bill with the other bills House Republicans have passed aiming to target people who repeatedly commit crimes.

“Studies suggest that about 6 percent of the US population commits somewhere between 65 percent and 80 percent of all violent crimes in this country,” Gustoff said. “Those are the bad actors who are targeted by Katie’s Law.”

Former New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez joined Bird at a January news conference speaking in support of the measure, which Martinez said gives law enforcement officers tools to more quickly arrest criminals and solve cold cases. The measure is named after Katie Sepich, a 22-year-old University of New Mexico student who was killed in 2003. Though officers collected DNA evidence from the crime scene, Sepich’s killer was not arrested until three years after her death when his DNA sample was taken after being convicted of burglary, resisting arrest and fraudulent refusal to return leased property.

But opponents to the measure said the bill will strip Iowans of their Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said he believes the measure violates the rights of people who are not “bad actors” but those who must be presumed innocent, as a court has not convicted them of a crime.

“There is no doubt that this is a powerful tool for law enforcement — and that is the chief argument — but that is not an argument for encroaching on the toes of the Fourth Amendment, because if the only concern of the state were powerful tools for law enforcement, we would be gathering lots more data,” Thomson said. “We would have telescreens in every home, we would have a television and audio microphone recording in every room. We’re not there yet, but we’re getting closer.”

Thomson referenced late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia’s dissent in a 2013 case, Maryland v. King, where Scalia said a Maryland law allowing DNA samples to be collected from individuals charged with violent crimes prior to conviction was unconstitutional and furthered the government building a “genetic panopticon.”

Thomson said the bill was the “nose of the camel under the tent,” opening the door for other measures that could potentially infringe on Iowans’ constitutional rights.

“How was it, that people in Iowa who were so zealous about their their rights and liberties, could vote to allow this, this blatant dragnet of DNA sampling, to go forward?” Thomson said. “And they’ll look at this bill, and they’ll say, ‘Well, it was limited.’ Well, why limit it? If it’s such a good tool, why not take the DNA of every fourth grader? Why not take the DNA of every person when they’re pulled over on a traffic stop. … I know that the votes are against me on this, but I beg of you at this time, think about our vote. This is not the right one, this is violating both the Iowa and federal Constitution.”

Gustoff said “Katie’s Law” is court-tested, and has been found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. He said other states, including Texas, Virginia, Indiana and California have seen significant numbers of cold cases resolved within a year of passing a “Katie’s Law” measure.

“Everything we do here is a balance of rights,” Gustoff said. “And we’re dealing with somebody who got arrested because they did something or they were somewhere they shouldn’t be — generally speaking, there are exceptions. I’m sure I could get people to give hypotheticals of all kinds of exceptions. But this is somebody who did something to get arrested, and I’m more worried about the victims and their families.”

Democrats also brought up concerns about the costs of implementing this measure.

According to a fiscal note from the Legislative Services Agency, the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation’s Criminalistics Laboratory, within the Department of Public Safety, processes roughly 7,000 DNA samples each year for inclusion in the national Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), managed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The LSA note stated if the bill is signed into law, there would be an expected increase of 28,000 new samples for the DCI laboratory to process in the first year of implementation, and between 12,000 and 15,000 new samples each following year.

This increase would mean the laboratory would need to hire four new staff and buy new equipment, resulting in a one-time cost of $1.4 million and an annual ongoing cost of $473,000, LSA estimated.

Rep. Angelina Ramirez, D-Cedar Rapids, said she understood “the heart and intent of this bill” in solving crimes and delivering justice, but said she believed the measure “is too expensive and too risky.”

“At a time when Iowans are watching every dollar in the state budget, we need to be very sure about our legislation before mandating that kind of permanent expenditure,” Ramirez said.

Ramirez also brought up concerns that while the data will be expunged from Iowa databases if charges are dropped or result in acquittal, the state cannot force a national or interstate database to recall an individual’s genetic data.

Gustoff said it was important to note that the genetic information collected in DNA samples is not the same as data collected through genetic testing services like 23andMe.

“It’s a fingerprint,” Gustoff said. “It’s things specific to you that aren’t necessarily describing your characteristics. So I just think there’s a complete misunderstanding of what we’re talking about here. It is forensic DNA, it is not whole genome DNA.”

The measure passed in a 64-30 vote, and goes to the Senate for further discussion.