New Reports Call for Urgent Guardrails on Emerging DNA Technologies to Protect Civil Liberties, Preserve DNA “Gold Standard”

The Policing Project at NYU School of Law has released a series of reports on law enforcement’s increasing use of unregulated, emerging DNA technologies and practices – including forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG), rapid DNA analysis, and expanded DNA collection

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2026

Media Contact: Joshua Manson, Policing Project at NYU School of Law, joshua.manson@nyu.edu, (914) 357-0000

A new series of reports released today by the Policing Project at NYU School of Law examines the rapid expansion of powerful DNA technologies that are transforming criminal investigations — while warning that the absence of meaningful regulation threatens civil liberties, public trust, and the long-term legitimacy of forensic DNA analysis.

Together, the reports argue that these technologies hold enormous promise for advancing public safety, solving violent crimes, identifying human remains, and delivering long-awaited answers to victims and families — but only if they are accompanied by clear legal standards, transparency, oversight, and accountability.

Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy

The release features a new report on forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG), an increasingly prominent investigative technique that allows law enforcement to identify suspects and unknown individuals by comparing crime scene DNA to profiles in public genealogy databases. FIGG is widely used by law enforcement – it has helped solve more than 1,000 cases in the United States, including cold cases and investigations involving unidentified human remains – but remains largely unregulated, with only two states having enacted comprehensive legislation governing law enforcement use of the technology.

According to the report, this regulatory gap creates substantial risks both for the public and for law enforcement agencies. Without clear safeguards, the report warns, investigative errors, privacy violations, and misuse of sensitive genetic information could undermine public trust and provoke a backlash that ultimately jeopardizes the future availability of FIGG itself – and the reputation of DNA analysis as the “gold standard” of forensic analysis.

To better understand the benefits and risks of FIGG, the Policing Project consulted prosecutors, public defenders, police officials, policymakers, genealogists, and experts from both private and public forensic laboratories. Across these perspectives, several core guardrails received near-unanimous support. These include limiting the use of FIGG to investigations involving violent crimes, missing persons, and unidentified human remains, requiring law enforcement to disclose the use of FIGG to defense counsel, and confirming any FIGG-generated identification through traditional DNA analysis before making an arrest. The report further recommends requiring investigators to establish legal grounds before initiating a FIGG search, implementing rigorous quality control standards, and mandating public reporting on how often and in what ways the technology is used.

“Simply put, what is needed here is regulation — sound, workable regulation,” the report concludes. “If FIGG is to become a mainstay of police investigations, its use must be authorized and regulated pursuant to an open and transparent public conversation, upon which the legitimacy of this promising new discipline relies.”

Rapid DNA Analysis

A second report examines rapid DNA technology, which can generate DNA profiles in as little as one to two hours and are increasingly being adopted by law enforcement agencies nationwide. This technology has significant potential benefits, which include reducing forensic backlogs and accelerating investigations. Yet the report warns that the lack of consistent regulation, oversight, and auditing creates significant risks of error, misuse, and wrongful arrests — particularly when agencies attempt to analyze complex crime scene samples outside traditional forensic laboratories. The report also raises concerns that rapid DNA could accelerate broader DNA collection and retention practices without adequate safeguards.

Expanded DNA Collection Practices

A third report examines the dramatic expansion of DNA collection practices by law enforcement. DNA increasingly is being collected not only from individuals upon criminal conviction, but also from people upon their arrest, from discarded items individuals leave behind such as coffee cups or straws, and through dragnet-style DNA “sweeps” in which police collect DNA from hundreds of individuals. The report examines these and other forms of expanded collection, and warns that these piecemeal practices increasingly resemble a universal DNA database — one built without meaningful public debate, transparency, or democratic accountability. The report calls for legislatures to establish clear rules governing how DNA is collected, stored, and analyzed.

Collectively, the reports argue that the future success of forensic DNA technologies depends not only on their investigative utility, but also on whether lawmakers establish durable safeguards capable of protecting civil liberties while maintaining public confidence.

“DNA technology is evolving in fundamental ways, but the laws governing its use by law enforcement have not kept pace,” said Policing Project Director of Technology Law & Policy Max Isaacs. “Advances in forensic science can improve public safety, but only if they are paired with balanced, common-sense regulation that ensures responsible use and the protection of individual rights.”

Find all three reports — and more information about the Policing Project’s work on advanced DNA collection and analysis practices — here.

The Policing Project at NYU School of Law promotes public safety through transparency, equity, and democratic engagement. Learn about the Policing Project at www.policingproject.org.