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.
The appellate opinion also highlighted concerns about the rapidly evolving nature of DNA technology and the possibility that individuals may not fully appreciate the future implications of surrendering genetic information.
Why the Settlement Matters
Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the settlement is the creation of a mechanism allowing some individuals to pursue removal of their DNA from the county’s system. Critics have long argued that people who avoided convictions through negotiated resolutions could nevertheless remain indefinitely within a government DNA database. The new expungement procedure appears aimed at addressing those concerns.
The settlement also addresses familial searching, an investigative technique that looks for partial DNA matches that may identify relatives of a person connected to crime-scene evidence. While supporters view the practice as a valuable investigative tool, privacy advocates have argued it can extend law-enforcement scrutiny beyond the individual whose DNA is being sought.
What Happens Next
The long-term impact of the settlement will likely depend on how many DNA records are ultimately removed and how broadly the new expungement procedures are applied. Because the settlement agreement is public, policymakers, civil-liberties advocates, and law-enforcement officials will have an opportunity to review the details and assess whether the reforms adequately address concerns raised in the litigation.
For now, the agreement brings an end to a legal battle that raised fundamental questions about privacy, consent, prosecutorial power, and the growing role of genetic databases in criminal investigations. As DNA technology continues to advance, those questions are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.