The Orange County district attorney’s office has agreed to begin removing genetic profiles from a locally maintained DNA database as part of a settlement resolving a lawsuit that argued the program exceeded legal authority and threatened privacy, officials said Friday.
Background and program practices
Created in 2007 by former District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, the initiative allowed prosecutors to offer reduced sentences or the dismissal of low-level misdemeanor charges in exchange for a DNA sample from defendants — a practice critics derided as “spit and acquit.” Unlike state and federal systems that collect DNA primarily for felonies and certain misdemeanors, Orange County’s database included profiles from people charged with lesser offenses, including driving under the influence.
Lawsuit and objections
UC Irvine criminology professor emeritus William Thompson filed the lawsuit in 2021, contending the program operated as a secretive form of genetic surveillance and lacked authorization under California law. Thompson has long scrutinized DNA analysis practices, and his earlier work contributed to the overhaul of Houston’s crime lab in 2002.
“There are dangers … (contributors to the DA’s database) could be linked to a crime mistakenly or falsely,” Thompson said. “It could affect you and it can also affect your relationships through familial searching.”
Thompson said the settlement implements what he characterized as needed safeguards, though he added it fell short of all the changes he sought.
Office response and changes
District Attorney Todd Spitzer, who suspended the office’s planned $2.5 million DNA collection program for 2026 amid budgetary constraints, said the settlement primarily formalizes protections the office already employed to preserve the integrity of the database and safeguard defendant rights. Spitzer, who criticized the local program while campaigning in 2018 but retained it after taking office, has defended the database’s value for investigations.
Under the terms disclosed in the settlement, the office will begin removing profiles from the local database and place limits on retention and use. The agreement also includes provisions intended to regulate how and when authorities may rely on the database for investigative purposes.
- 2007: Local DNA program created by the DA’s office.
- 2018: Todd Spitzer campaigns on criticism of the program but later retains it.
- 2021: William Thompson files suit challenging the database.
- 2026: Spitzer suspends a planned $2.5 million expansion amid budget cuts; settlement reached after litigation.
| Issue | Local practice |
|---|---|
| Types of profiles collected | Misdemeanor defendants, including DUI |
| State/federal norm | Felonies and select misdemeanors (arson, some sexual crimes) |
| Retention change | Automatic removal after a set period under settlement |
Implications and remaining questions
Civil libertarians and legal scholars view the case as part of a broader national debate about how far prosecutors should be permitted to go in gathering and storing genetic information from people charged with low-level offenses. Supporters of local DNA collection argue the data can be a valuable investigative tool; critics warn that expansive, locally maintained databases raise risks of erroneous matches and familial searches that can implicate uninvolved relatives.
The settlement’s safeguards were described by Thompson as meaningful steps away from practices that could have incentivized charging decisions based on building a database rather than on public safety considerations. Spitzer said the agreement primarily codifies protections already in place.
As the terms of the settlement are implemented, Orange County’s approach could influence policy debates elsewhere over the appropriate scope of genetic data collection in the criminal justice system and the balance between investigative utility and privacy protections.
Officials did not immediately provide a full timeline for when profiles would be purged or detailed operational rules for the capped retention and use; court filings and future public statements are expected to clarify the precise mechanics of the agreement.
