Utah Senate advances bill to regulate investigative genetic genealogy amid privacy concerns

Second Substitute Senate Bill 156, presented on the Utah Senate floor Feb. 14, would establish definitions, procedures, and reporting requirements for law-enforcement use of investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) and related databases. Sponsor Senator Wyler said the bill aims to balance public-safety gains from DNA-based investigations with protections for privacy and familial sharing of genetic data.

"This bill defines and modifies terms when DNA is used in criminal investigations," the sponsor said, describing requirements for agencies that request a genetic-genealogy search and obligations for post‑conviction relief tied to genealogy databases. He said the measure also directs the state’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Commission (CCJJ) to compile and publish data on law-enforcement use of genetic genealogy.

Several senators pressed the sponsor on the scope of access and which consumer databases would be affected. Senator Plumb asked whether the bill narrows who within law enforcement may run searches, citing past concerns with prescription‑monitoring access. The sponsor replied that searches are expected to be performed by forensic units such as the state crime lab and not by patrol officers: "You're not gonna have, like, a patrol officer running DNA through a national database," he said.

Senators also sought clarity about which commercial or consumer databases are included. The sponsor said the bill treats large consumer companies (Ancestry, 23andMe) differently from third-party opt-in databases and convicted‑offender databases, and that the bill is intended to address searches of opt‑in databases where users have consented to law‑enforcement use.

Privacy advocates’ concerns were repeatedly raised. Senator Kennedy asked how the bill protects against genetic surveillance from discarded items (chewing gum, garbage). The sponsor said the bill does not change laws about material left in public and emphasized that the policy is focused on opt‑in databases: "If you throw out your garbage, you know, that's susceptible to a private investigator... I don't want someone sifting through my garbage. I don't want someone going through my used chewing gum. But this bill doesn't change those laws," he said.

Sponsor and supporters described the measure as refined from last year's effort and said stakeholders, including privacy advocates and top geneticists, have been consulted. The sponsor said the bill will likely be tweaked as it moves through the process: "This is a complicated bill... It's something that I expect will be continued to be tweaked and modified at every stage."

The Senate proceeded to read the bill for a third time; floor debate focused on tightening scope, access controls, and reporting to ensure transparency when genealogical searches are used in violent-crime investigations. The bill was moved forward for further consideration and possible amendment in subsequent stages.

What happens next: The sponsor signaled continued stakeholder engagement and refinement before final votes.