According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1723 is projected to have a negative fiscal impact on General Revenue funds totaling approximately $6.49 million over the 2026–2027 biennium. The Department of Public Safety (DPS) indicates that implementing the Rapid DNA Analysis Pilot Program will require new personnel, technology upgrades, and capital expenditures that cannot be absorbed within the current agency resources.

Specifically, the fiscal note identifies the need for six full-time employees, including forensic scientists, research and IT specialists, and program management staff. Personnel costs are estimated at $645,249 per year for both FY2026 and FY2027. Additionally, $2.05 million in capital expenses are expected in FY2026 alone to procure Rapid DNA testing devices and implement necessary software changes to the CODIS and Livescan systems. Operational costs—including supplies, travel, fuel, rent, and maintenance—are expected to rise from $849,719 in FY2026 to over $2.5 million by FY2028 as the pilot scales up.

While the bill includes language allowing DPS to seek external funding through grants or donations, the fiscal note does not assume any offsetting revenues. It also confirms that no significant fiscal impact is expected for local governments, meaning county or municipal law enforcement agencies participating in the pilot would not be required to bear substantial new costs.

In summary, the bill creates a short-term but notable expenditure for the state with a defined sunset in 2028, unless renewed. It highlights the importance of closely monitoring the pilot’s cost-effectiveness and outcomes to inform any decision on continuation or expansion.

SB 1723 proposes the establishment of a Rapid DNA Analysis Pilot Program administered by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), with the goal of expediting the DNA identification process for individuals arrested for felony offenses. The pilot would deploy automated systems capable of producing DNA profiles within 90 to 120 minutes, bypassing traditional forensic labs. The program is intended to reduce backlogs, identify repeat offenders more quickly, and improve investigative outcomes in the early stages of criminal cases.

While the goals of the legislation are well-intended, the bill as filed presents serious liberty concerns that outweigh its public safety objectives. Most significantly, SB 1723 expands the size and scope of state government by creating a new DPS-run program, authorizing the hiring of six new full-time employees, and requiring substantial technology infrastructure upgrades. According to the Legislative Budget Board, the bill would impose a $6.49 million cost to taxpayers over the initial biennium, with no guaranteed offset from grants or donations. This growth in government spending and operations lacks built-in fiscal controls or ongoing legislative oversight before the pilot’s 2028 sunset.

Moreover, the bill lacks any statutory guardrails to protect individual liberty and privacy. Rapid DNA technology, while promising, poses unique risks when deployed outside accredited crime labs. There is no language in the bill limiting the retention, use, or sharing of DNA collected from arrestees—some of whom may never be charged or convicted. Without explicit provisions requiring the destruction of DNA samples from individuals not prosecuted, the pilot risks enabling unconstitutional surveillance or databasing of Texans without due process.

The bill also raises concerns related to limited government and personal responsibility. The rapid processing of DNA prior to judicial review, if not narrowly constrained, shifts the balance of power toward the state and away from individual protections. Additionally, the authorization to solicit and accept private donations for a public law enforcement program introduces the possibility of mission drift or undue influence, absent transparency requirements or reporting thresholds.

SB 1723 must be amended to add robust privacy protections, including limits on DNA use and storage, protocols for deletion of records, strict access controls, and independent oversight mechanisms. It should also include interim legislative reporting requirements and guardrails for the use of third-party funding. Without these amendments, the bill does not sufficiently protect individual rights and could unintentionally set a precedent for expanded biometric surveillance.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1723 unless amended as described above. The bill in its current form, substantially conflicts with the liberty principles of individual liberty, limited government, and fiscal restraint.

• Individual Liberty: The bill raises significant civil liberties concerns. It authorizes the use of rapid DNA analysis at the time of booking, prior to adjudication or conviction, without clearly defining how the DNA data will be stored, accessed, or deleted. This creates a risk of privacy violations and unwarranted surveillance of individuals who may never be charged or found guilty. The lack of procedural safeguards or opt-outs for those wrongfully arrested undermines foundational due process protections under the Texas and U.S. Constitutions. The principle of bodily autonomy is also at stake, as the bill does not distinguish between compelled collection for violent offenses versus other felony categories.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill does not directly affect citizens' ability to act responsibly, it could indirectly undermine the presumption of innocence by embedding rapid DNA analysis into the early stages of arrest. Individuals may be processed and potentially implicated by a system that has not been proven in real-world law enforcement settings, and without their consent or adequate legal protections. This risks shifting responsibility and burden onto the accused before due process has occurred.
• Free Enterprise: Though the bill does not directly impose new regulations on businesses, it creates potential for public-private partnerships in law enforcement technology without sufficient transparency. It allows DPS to accept private funding, including gifts and grants, to support the program. Without safeguards, this could distort public priorities, incentivize vendor-driven surveillance tools, or crowd out public oversight in favor of private influence. The lack of procurement standards or disclosure requirements weakens public accountability in government contracting.
• Private Property Rights: The bill indirectly affects property rights over one's own DNA, which many legal scholars and privacy advocates argue should be treated as a form of personal property. The bill is silent on ownership, use limitations, or consent regarding DNA data collected and analyzed by the state. Without statutory boundaries, this raises the specter of long-term retention or misuse of personal genetic information, violating the principle that individuals have control over their own biological data.
• Limited Government: The bill clearly expands the scope of government by creating a new program, authorizing significant new spending, and hiring additional personnel. It does so without embedding sufficient legislative oversight, sunset review checkpoints (other than a final 2028 expiration), or guardrails on rulemaking authority granted to DPS. It also opens the door to collaboration with federal entities, such as the FBI, without clarifying the limits of data-sharing or preemptive federal influence in state law enforcement. This undermines the principle that the government should be restrained, transparent, and accountable to the people.