After years of litigation and public debate, Todd Spitzer and taxpayer plaintiff Professor William Thompson have reached a settlement in a closely watched lawsuit challenging the Orange County District Attorney’s Office’s controversial DNA collection program. The agreement will bring changes to how DNA is collected from misdemeanor defendants, how samples are retained, and how individuals may seek removal of their genetic information from the county’s database.
What the Settlement Does
According to the joint announcement, the settlement includes:
- Modifications to procedures governing plea offers when prosecutors seek DNA samples from misdemeanor defendants.
- Removal of certain DNA samples from the system.
- Creation of a DNA expungement process for eligible individuals.
- Clarification of policies governing familial DNA searches.
- Expanded public disclosures about operation of the DNA database.
The parties stated that the settlement agreement is a public document.
Background on Orange County’s DNA Program
The lawsuit focused on the county’s DNA collection system, often referred to by critics as the “Spit and Acquit” program. Established in 2007, the program allowed prosecutors to offer reduced charges, dismissals, or other favorable resolutions in exchange for DNA samples from some misdemeanor defendants. Those samples were then retained in a local database operated by the District Attorney’s Office.
Critics argued the program allowed the government to collect genetic information from people accused of relatively minor offenses who had not been convicted of a crime. Supporters maintained the database provided investigators with another tool to solve crimes and identify suspects.
The Lawsuit
The legal challenge was brought by William Thompson and fellow University of California, Irvine professor Simon Cole, who sued as Orange County taxpayers. They alleged the DNA collection program violated constitutional protections involving privacy, due process, and the right to counsel.
The case gained significant attention in April 2023 when California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal revived major portions of the lawsuit after a trial court had dismissed it. The appellate court concluded the plaintiffs had adequately alleged constitutional concerns sufficient to move the case forward…