Michigan DNA Collection – The Law

Chapter 750
Act 328 of 1931
328-1931-LXXVI

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931

Here’s the website info

750.520m DNA identification profiling; chemical testing; manner of collecting and transmitting samples; existing DNA identification profile; assessment; definitions.

Sec. 520m.

(1) A person shall provide samples for chemical testing for DNA identification profiling or a determination of the sample’s genetic markers and shall provide samples for chemical testing if any of the following apply:

(a) The individual is arrested for committing or attempting to commit a felony offense or an offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult.

(b) The person is convicted of, or found responsible for, a felony or attempted felony, or any of the following misdemeanors or local ordinances that are substantially corresponding to the following misdemeanors:

(i) A violation of section 167(1)(c), (f), or (i), disorderly person by window peeping, engaging in indecent or obscene conduct in public, or loitering in a house of ill fame or prostitution.

(ii) A violation of section 335a(1), indecent exposure.

(iii) A violation punishable under section 451(1) or (2), first and second prostitution violations.

(iv) A violation of section 454, leasing a house for purposes of prostitution.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), if at the time the person is arrested for, convicted of, or found responsible for the violation the investigating law enforcement agency or the department of state police already has a sample from the person that meets the requirements of the DNA identification profiling system act, 1990 PA 250, MCL 28.171 to 28.176, the person is not required to provide another sample or pay the assessment required under subsection (5).

(3) The county sheriff or the investigating law enforcement agency shall collect and transmit the samples in the manner required under the DNA identification profiling system act, 1990 PA 250, MCL 28.171 to 28.176.

(4) An investigating law enforcement agency, prosecuting agency, or court that has in its possession a DNA identification sample obtained from a person under subsection (1) shall forward the DNA identification sample to the department of state police after the person from whom the sample was taken has been charged with committing or attempting to commit a felony offense or an offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult unless the department of state police already has a DNA identification profile of the person.

(5) The court shall order each person found responsible for or convicted of 1 or more crimes listed in subsection (1) to pay an assessment of $60.00. The assessment required under this subsection is in addition to any fine, costs, or other assessments imposed by the court.

(6) An assessment required under subsection (5) shall be ordered upon the record, and shall be listed separately in the adjudication order, judgment of sentence, or order of probation.

(7) After reviewing a verified petition by a person against whom an assessment is imposed under subsection (5), the court may suspend payment of all or part of the assessment if it determines the person is unable to pay the assessment.

(8) The court that imposes the assessment prescribed under subsection (5) may retain 10% of all assessments or portions of assessments collected for costs incurred under this section and shall transmit that money to its funding unit. On the last day of each month, the clerk of the court shall transmit the assessments or portions of assessments collected under this section as follows:

(a) Twenty-five percent to the county sheriff or other investigating law enforcement agency that collected the DNA sample as designated by the court to defray the costs of collecting DNA samples.

(b) Sixty-five percent to the state treasurer for deposit in the justice system fund created in section 181 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.181.

(9) As used in this section:

(a) “DNA identification profile” and “DNA identification profiling” mean those terms as defined in section 2 of the DNA identification profiling system act, 1990 PA 250, MCL 28.172.

(b) “Investigating law enforcement agency” means the law enforcement agency responsible for the investigation of the offense for which the person is arrested or convicted. Investigating law enforcement agency includes the county sheriff but does not include a probation officer employed by the department of corrections.

(c) “Felony” means a violation of a penal law of this state for which the offender may be punished by imprisonment for more than 1 year or an offense expressly designated by law to be a felony.

(d) “Sample” means a portion of a person’s blood, saliva, or tissue collected from the person.

Here’s what we say

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Don’t talk to the police before, during or after your Miranda rights have been read without a lawyer present. If you do limit your information because what you say locks you into what you said. Just because you are not under arrest or being detained does not mean what you say will not be used against you.

Here is some information to review.

Don’t worry, a copy of your DNA has not been sent off to the Government Mountain Storage Facility for permanant storage out of view, or has it?

Legal Counsel and Your Rights

When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.

An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.

Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.

Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.

Research us and then call us.

Tap to Call Komorn Law Now

More Rights You Should Know

Do Passengers in a Vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?

Do Passengers have 4th Amendment Rights?Michigan Supreme Court Limits Police Ability to Search Passenger Property in CarsBackground Mead was a passenger in a car and had just met the driver, who offered him a ride. When the police stopped the vehicle and ordered both...

SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

SCOTUS: When police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes it does not necessitate a separate preliminary hearing.The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against two women who loaned their cars to others arrested for drug crimes while using the vehicles, leading...

Other Articles

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...

What are Miranda Rights?

What are Miranda Rights?Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda warning, are the rights given to people in the United States upon arrest. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” These rights stem...

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

What is the Exclusionary Rule?The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the United States that prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Specifically, it applies to evidence obtained through an...

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Long Lake Township v. Maxon The Costs Outweigh Benefits in Exclusionary Rule Application and the Slippery Slope of Fourth Amendment ProtectionsThe recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court in Long Lake Township v. Maxon represents a significant shift in the...

Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight

Summary of the Opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoIn Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court addressed the enduring precedent set by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which has shaped administrative law for...

MI Lawyer Weekly – Michigan’s Go To Lawyers for Cannabis Law

Please join us in congratulating our inaugural Michigan’s Go To Lawyer for cannabis law. Michael Komorn, Komorn Law, Farmington HillsMichigan Lawyers Weekly is pleased to announce the inaugural “Go To Lawyers” for cannabis law. Now in its fifth year, the “Go To...

Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.

Inside the Chinese-funded and staffed marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.During a farm inspection, New Mexico state special agents discovered an excessive number of cannabis plants in violation of state laws. Subsequent visits revealed dozens of underfed and...