Shortly after birth, newborns are pricked in the heels.

While it's widely known that the process is meant to test their blood to identify life threatening conditions.

What isn't known is the amount of time that a sample is kept.

Here in New Jersey.

That blood sample has traditionally been stored for decades, a policy that is now being fought by parents who claim that keeping those records violates the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Senior correspondent Joanna Gagis has more on the changes to this policy just announced by the Attorney General.

The state doesn't belong in that moment, and they're there without anyone even knowing that they're there.

Hannah Lavaglio is one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the state of New Jersey over a practice called Blood Spot Retention, where the state takes a sample of blood from every baby born and then keeps that data for a period of 23 years.

Realizing just how upsetting it was as a mother who's had both of her children in New Jersey, to think that in that most vulnerable and sacred moment, something happened without my knowledge over which I have no control now.

Erika Jedynak is the other plaintiff in the case.

My son's blood.

That's.

That's his personal.

That's his personal right.

This is personal property, and so is his parent and his guardian.

It's my job, right, to keep him safe and secure.

The state tests each newborn's blood for 61 disorders that could lead to serious health problems.

And those tests are conducted within 48 hours of birth.

And they collect that data across the entire population ocean.

But parents are never told about it, nor given the chance to opt out.

The lawsuit argues this is a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches or seizures.

So when they do, when they take the original blood, that's a seizure and they have a justification for that seizure.

We're not challenging that seizure.

But the justification is the test for these 60 some diseases, like we mentioned, that purpose for taking for seizing the blood is is over in a couple of weeks because.

That's how long it takes for the results to come back in, says attorney for the plaintiffs, Brian Morris.

Once that reason is over, they have to give it back.

Or in this instance, they could give it back or they could destroy it.

They don't get to keep it forever.

Just because their original reason for having it was justified.

The case was first brought in November 2023 and was strengthened when an Oprah request revealed that a baby's blood sample was used to identify a family member, the baby's father, whose biological data was connected to a sexual assault cold case.

The blood was accessed by law enforcement through a subpoena to the Department of Health.

At least in New Jersey, our Constitution would not allow for a minor child's blood to be obtained and then tested by law enforcement without a warrant and without probable cause.

To be clear, not only that the minor child committed a crime because, of course, the baby did not commit the crime, but also that a specific person committed the crime.

They didn't know who it was.

And so they were using this baby's genetic material to figure out who their suspect was.

The Institute for Justice that's filed the case on behalf of the plaintiffs has been in settlement negotiations with the state.

The states argued that law enforcement has almost never sought to use this material as part of an investigation, citing just five grand jury subpoenas over the preceding five years.

As of 2022.

But just yesterday, Attorney General Matt Platkin issued an executive order outlining several major changes to the blood sport program.

First, records will only be held for two years rather than 23.

Any request for blood data from law enforcement will go through a strict approval process and must exhibit genuinely exceptional circumstances that make the request necessary.

But just one piece is missing, says Morris.

The number one thing that they need to do is get parental consent before they keep it.

And so our lawsuit will continue and tell parents when the blood is taken or given the choice.

Attorneys have a week to respond to the AG's executive order.

They believe that given the success of similar lawsuits in other states, their parents will win in the end.

I'm Joanna Gagis NJ Spotlight News.