Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Combined DNA Index System

The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is a software program developed and administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to enable the storage, searching, and matching of DNA profiles across local, state, and national databases for criminal justice purposes.^[1] It facilitates the comparison of forensic DNA evidence from crime scenes against profiles from convicted offenders, arrestees, and unidentified human remains to generate investigative leads in unsolved cases.^[2] CODIS operates through three tiers—Local DNA Index System (LDIS), State DNA Index System (SDIS), and National DNA Index System (NDIS)—allowing hierarchical searches that link evidence across jurisdictions without compromising profile ownership.^[3] Initiated by the FBI in the late 1980s and formalized under the DNA Identification Act of 1994, CODIS has evolved to standardize 20 core loci for DNA profiling, ensuring compatibility and reliability in matches.^[4] Its primary purpose is to resolve violent crimes and sexual assaults by providing empirical links between biological evidence and known individuals, thereby aiding law enforcement in identifying perpetrators where traditional methods fall short.^[1] As of 2021, the NDIS contained millions of profiles and had generated over 548,000 hits, assisting in more than 535,000 investigations and demonstrating its causal role in increasing solvency rates for qualifying offenses.^[5] These matches have empirically contributed to convictions and exonerations by verifying or refuting suspect involvement through direct genetic evidence.^[6] Despite its successes, CODIS has faced criticisms regarding privacy implications from database expansions to include arrestee samples, the potential for familial searching leading to incidental matches, and risks of laboratory errors or partial matches that could yield false leads.^[7]^[8] Proponents emphasize that CODIS profiles use non-coding DNA loci, limiting inferences to identity rather than traits or health, while detractors highlight systemic backlogs and the need for rigorous validation to maintain causal accuracy in forensic applications.^[9] Ongoing debates center on balancing investigative efficacy with consent and equity concerns, though empirical data underscores CODIS's net positive impact on public safety through targeted crime resolution.^[6]

History and Development

Origins and Initial Legislation

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) launched the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) as a pilot software project in 1990, initially serving 14 state and local forensic laboratories to facilitate the comparison of DNA profiles derived from crime scenes against those from convicted offenders.^[10] This initiative responded to the emerging forensic utility of DNA typing, which had gained traction in the late 1980s for identifying perpetrators in violent crimes, particularly sexual assaults, by enabling cross-jurisdictional matches that individual labs could not achieve alone.^[11] The pilot emphasized software interoperability and data sharing among participants, laying the groundwork for a national infrastructure amid rising demands for standardized DNA evidence in prosecutions.^[12] Congress formalized CODIS through the DNA Identification Act of 1994, enacted as Title XXI, Subtitle C, Chapter 1 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Pub. L. 103–322, signed September 13, 1994), which explicitly authorized the FBI to establish and maintain the National DNA Index System (NDIS) for law enforcement purposes.^[13] The legislation directed the FBI to develop guidelines for DNA data quality, privacy protections, and index participation, while allocating initial funding—approximately $4 million annually starting in fiscal year 1995—for system implementation and laboratory grants, with priority collection mandated for DNA samples from individuals convicted of sex offenses and other qualifying felonies.^[14] This act addressed prior fragmentation in state-level DNA databasing by mandating federal oversight and accreditation standards for participating labs to ensure reliability and admissibility in court.^[15] NDIS, the national tier of CODIS, transitioned from pilot to full operations in 1998, marking the system's readiness for routine investigative use after software refinements and initial data uploads from compliant states.^[16] The foundational emphasis remained on linking serial violent crimes through offender profiles, reflecting legislative intent to enhance public safety via retrospective and prospective DNA matching without expanding beyond core statutory categories at inception.^[17]

Key Expansions and Milestones

The DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005, enacted as part of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act, mandated the collection of DNA samples from federal offenders, including those arrested, charged, or convicted of qualifying offenses, thereby expanding the scope of profiles eligible for entry into CODIS.^[18] This legislation amended the DNA Identification Act of 1994 to permit the inclusion of arrestee profiles, previously prohibited, which directly increased the offender index and enabled matches with unsolved crime scene evidence.^[19] At the state level, California's Proposition 69, approved by voters on November 2, 2004, broadened DNA sampling requirements to encompass all adult felony arrestees starting in 2009, alongside juveniles charged with certain felonies, augmenting the state's contributions to the National DNA Index System (NDIS) and facilitating earlier identification of serial offenders through database hits.) Such expansions causally linked to higher resolution rates for violent crimes by populating databases with profiles from individuals not yet convicted, allowing pre-trial linkages to prior incidents.^[20] Technological advancements included the FBI's expansion of CODIS core loci from 13 to 20, implemented on January 1, 2017, following validation in 2015; this addition of seven loci—D5S818, DYS391, D2S441, D2S1338, D19S433, DYS570, and DYS391—increased profile specificity, minimized false positives, and improved international compatibility, thereby enhancing the system's capacity to resolve complex mixtures and cold cases.^[10] Concurrently, NDIS achieved full participation from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, federal laboratories, and Puerto Rico, standardizing interstate profile sharing and amplifying the investigative yield through broader search capabilities.^[1] In early 2025, the FBI updated its Quality Assurance Standards to approve Rapid DNA instruments for generating reference profiles from arrestees at booking stations, effective July 1, 2025, permitting direct uploads to CODIS without traditional laboratory processing; this milestone accelerates database population from recent arrests, causally reducing time-to-match for linking suspects to open cases.^[21]

Technical and Scientific Foundations

Core Loci and Profile Generation

The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) relies on standardized short tandem repeat (STR) loci in non-coding regions of autosomal DNA to generate forensic profiles, ensuring high discriminatory power without inferring phenotypic traits such as ancestry or physical appearance. These loci exhibit high polymorphism due to variable repeat numbers, with allele frequencies derived from extensive population genetics databases to compute match probabilities. Effective January 1, 2017, CODIS mandates 20 core autosomal STR loci—CSF1PO, D1S1656, D2S1338, D2S441, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, D10S1248, D12S391, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D19S433, D21S11, D22S1045, FGA, TH01, TPOX, and VWA—plus the Amelogenin marker for sex determination.^[1] Examples include TH01, which targets tetranucleotide repeats on chromosome 11, and D3S1358 on chromosome 3, selected for their linkage equilibrium across populations and minimal stutter artifacts in amplification.^[22] DNA profiles for CODIS are generated through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of these targeted loci from extracted genomic DNA, typically from buccal swabs or evidentiary samples, followed by capillary electrophoresis to separate and detect fluorescently labeled amplicons by size. This multiplex PCR process amplifies minute quantities of DNA (as low as 0.1-1 ng) while minimizing contamination risks via closed-tube methods and validated kits compliant with FBI standards. The resulting electropherogram yields allelic peak heights and positions, forming a numeric profile of repeat counts (e.g., 7/9 for a heterozygous locus), which is uploaded only if at least 15 of the 20 loci meet quality thresholds, such as balanced heterozygote peaks exceeding 50 relative fluorescence units.^[23] Emphasis on non-coding intronic or intergenic STRs avoids direct ties to coding sequences, with empirical validation confirming independence via Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and low linkage disequilibrium in diverse U.S. subpopulations.^[24] Full 20-locus CODIS profiles yield random match probabilities below 1 in 10^18 (one in a quintillion) across major population groups, calculated as the product of individual locus genotype frequencies under the assumption of independence, far exceeding thresholds for unique identification in populations of billions.^[25] This reliability stems from population-specific allele frequency tables maintained by the FBI and NIST, updated via blinded testing to account for substructure effects like theta corrections, which conservatively adjust for relatedness (typically theta=0.01-0.03). Profile integrity is enforced through the FBI's Quality Assurance Standards (QAS), mandating annual external audits, internal proficiency testing with error rates below 0.1% for mock casework, and corrective actions for discrepancies.^[26] Labs failing audits are suspended from NDIS uploads, ensuring empirical low false-positive rates in validation studies exceeding 99.9% concordance across replicates.^[27]

Database Structure and Indexes

The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) operates through a three-tiered hierarchical structure designed to facilitate efficient data sharing and searching across local, state, and national levels while maintaining jurisdictional control and data integrity. The Local DNA Index System (LDIS) consists of databases maintained by individual forensic laboratories for internal use and uploading qualified profiles to higher tiers.^[28] The State DNA Index System (SDIS) aggregates LDIS data at the state level, enabling intrastate searches and forwarding eligible profiles to the national tier. The National DNA Index System (NDIS), administered by the FBI, serves as the uppermost tier, containing profiles from participating states and federal entities for interstate and national-level comparisons.^[28] This tiered approach ensures that searches propagate upward only after local and state-level reviews, optimizing resource use and investigative focus.^[29] NDIS organizes DNA profiles into distinct indexes to segregate data by source and purpose, thereby directing searches toward specific investigative objectives within the criminal justice framework. The Forensic Index holds DNA profiles derived from crime scene evidence, excluding known perpetrator samples, to enable comparisons against reference profiles for generating leads.^[10]^[29] The Offender Index encompasses profiles from convicted offenders, while the Arrestee Index includes those from individuals arrested for qualifying offenses, with both treated equivalently in searches to identify potential suspects.^[29]^[30] Separate non-criminal indexes under the National Missing Person DNA Database (NMPDD) include the Unidentified Human Remains Index for profiles from unknown deceased individuals, the Relatives of Missing Persons Index for family reference samples, and the Missing Persons Index for samples from living missing individuals.^[31]^[32] This segregation prevents cross-contamination of criminal and humanitarian data, preserving the system's utility for law enforcement while supporting identification efforts.^[29] Search algorithms in CODIS prioritize exact string matches across designated loci to generate investigative hits, with partial matches reviewed manually but not routinely reported to minimize adventitious or random coincidences that could arise from database scale.^[33]^[34] Forensic profiles are primarily searched against the combined Offender and Arrestee Indexes to yield suspect identifications, while NMPDD indexes are queried separately for familial or direct matches in missing persons cases.^[10]^[31] Index separation enforces targeted utility, as inter-index criminal searches are restricted to avoid diluting forensic leads with non-evidentiary data, and protocols require confirmation of hits through laboratory retesting before disclosure.^[29]^[10] This structure balances comprehensiveness with precision, reducing false positives in large-scale operations.^[34]

Recent Technological Integrations

The integration of Rapid DNA technology into CODIS workflows has accelerated profile generation from reference samples, enabling automated processing of buccal swabs into searchable STR profiles in approximately 90 minutes without laboratory personnel or extensive human review.^[35] Instruments such as the ANDE Rapid ID system, employing assays like FlexPlex27, have undergone developmental validation demonstrating near-complete concordance (over 99%) with traditional capillary electrophoresis methods for CODIS core loci across hundreds of reference samples.^[36] FBI-led multi-laboratory studies in 2023 further confirmed high reproducibility, with concordance rates exceeding 95% for qualified devices when processing defined sample sets under controlled conditions, paving the way for broader operational deployment.^[37] A pivotal advancement occurred with the FBI's 2025 Quality Assurance Standards (QAS) update, effective July 1, 2025, which expanded eligibility for Rapid DNA-generated profiles from forensic casework—such as crime scene evidence—to be directly uploaded and searched in CODIS, subject to device qualification and adherence to new forensic-specific protocols.^[35] This policy shift, building on prior arrestee reference sample approvals, targets backlog reduction by allowing on-site or booking-station processing, with initial implementations reported in state laboratories enabling same-day database hits for qualifying violent crime investigations.^[38] Pilot explorations of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for CODIS-relevant STR loci have focused on enhancing recovery from degraded or low-quantity challenging samples, where NGS-based STR typing panels achieve higher sensitivity than conventional methods by resolving sequence variants within repeats.^[39] However, CODIS database operations remain anchored to length-based STR measurements via electrophoretic sizing for routine uploads, with NGS outputs limited to confirmatory roles in laboratory validation rather than direct integration, due to standardization challenges in allele binning and inter-laboratory comparability.^[40] These pilots, conducted in accredited forensic facilities post-2020, underscore potential for supplemental use in complex mixtures but have not yet altered core CODIS indexing protocols.^[41]

Operational Scope and Effectiveness

Database Growth and Statistics

As of August 2025, the National DNA Index System (NDIS) contained 18,910,727 offender profiles, 6,036,746 arrestee profiles, and 1,435,324 forensic profiles, totaling over 24.9 million indexed DNA records.^[42] These figures reflect sustained expansion from prior years, with NDIS holding approximately 22.2 million offender and arrestee profiles combined as of June 2024.^[43] The database's growth stems primarily from state-level legislative mandates broadening mandatory DNA collection to include felony arrestees, certain misdemeanor offenders, and juveniles in select jurisdictions, alongside federal incentives under laws like the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005. Federal programs, including the Bureau of Justice Assistance's DNA Capacity Enhancement for Backlog Reduction (CEBR) grants, have accelerated uploads by funding laboratory processing to clear analysis backlogs, accounting for roughly half of all historical CODIS hits through enhanced forensic profile submissions.^[44] Annual contributions to NDIS typically range from 1 to 2 million new offender and arrestee profiles, driven by these policy expansions and improved laboratory throughput, with the database size directly correlating to higher investigative yields.^[45] Cumulatively, NDIS searches have produced 769,572 hits as of August 2025, aiding 747,041 investigations, a milestone underscoring the empirical value of scale in matching unknown crime scene evidence to known profiles.^[42] Hit generation has risen proportionally with database expansion, as larger offender/arrestee indexes increase match probabilities without commensurate growth in forensic inputs.^[46]

Investigative Impacts and Hit Rates

As of June 2025, the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) has generated over 761,872 hits, assisting law enforcement in more than 739,456 investigations nationwide.^[42] These hits include matches between crime scene evidence and offender profiles, as well as forensic-to-forensic linkages connecting serial crimes. Approximately 20-30% of these hits involve sexual assault cases, with many resolving cold cases spanning decades, such as the identification of suspects in unsolved rapes from the 1970s and 1980s through re-analysis of stored evidence.^[47]^[48] Empirical studies indicate that CODIS hits contribute to arrests or indictments in roughly 10-25% of cases, depending on jurisdiction and case type, with convictions following in a subset where evidence corroborates the match. For instance, an analysis of the first 1,000 cold hits in Virginia yielded 100 convictions via plea or trial, representing a 10% resolution rate, while broader reviews of sexual assault kit backlogs show arrests in about 5-20% of hit-generated leads after investigative follow-up.^[49]^[50] These outcomes also extend to exonerations; CODIS-enabled re-testing of archived evidence has identified mismatches excluding previously convicted individuals, contributing to at least 375 DNA-based exonerations overall since the 1980s, though direct CODIS attribution varies.^[51] Beyond direct resolutions, CODIS fosters deterrence by expanding searchable profiles from arrestees and convicts, reducing recidivism risks through heightened detection probabilities; studies estimate that broader sampling correlates with fewer repeat offenses in sampled populations. Cost-benefit evaluations quantify substantial savings, with forensic DNA processing and hits averting millions in investigative expenditures—such as $26.5 million from sexual assault kit testing programs—and potentially billions system-wide by preventing serial crimes and streamlining cold case closures.^[52]^[53]^[54]

Legal and Collection Policies

Mandatory Collection from Convicted Offenders

The Justice for All Act of 2004 established a federal mandate for collecting DNA samples from individuals convicted of qualifying federal felonies, expanding beyond prior limitations to include a broader range of serious offenses for inclusion in the National DNA Index System (NDIS).^[55] This legislation, codified in 34 U.S.C. § 40702, requires the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and other federal agencies to obtain samples from convicted offenders under their custody or supervision, with profiles generated from 20 CODIS core loci for database entry.^[56] The DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 built on this by mandating samples specifically from those convicted of violent felonies or sex offenses, such as under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (sexual exploitation of children), to prioritize identification of perpetrators in high-impact crimes.^[19] All 50 states have enacted parallel statutes mirroring federal requirements, typically mandating DNA collection from adults convicted of felonies involving violence, sexual assault, or other designated crimes, often linked to lifetime sex offender registration under laws like the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.^[57] These state laws emphasize public safety by cataloging genetic identifiers from recidivism-prone categories, where empirical analyses of criminal histories indicate repeat violent offending rates exceeding 50% within five years for certain felony cohorts, enabling forensic matches to unsolved cases and disrupting serial criminal patterns. Collection occurs post-conviction during intake at correctional facilities, with samples submitted to state CODIS laboratories for profiling before upload to NDIS if qualifying.^[58] DNA is obtained via buccal swabs—sterile cotton applicators rubbed against the inner cheek to collect epithelial cells—a minimally invasive procedure that yields sufficient genetic material without blood draws, standard across federal and state programs since the early 2000s for efficiency and reduced health risks.^[59] Prioritization targets high-recidivism demographics, including sex offenders (with rearrest rates for sexual crimes documented at 13-24% over follow-up periods in Bureau of Justice Statistics longitudinal studies) and violent felons, as database hits from such profiles have empirically linked offenders to multiple unsolved violent incidents, causal to increased clearance rates and deterrence through heightened detection certainty. The FBI enforces compliance through periodic audits of state and local laboratories against Quality Assurance Standards (QAS) for offender DNA databasing, evaluating sample handling, profiling accuracy, and submission protocols to ensure NDIS integrity.^[60] Non-compliant jurisdictions risk suspension from NDIS participation, forfeiture of federal Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, or mandatory corrective actions, as stipulated in NDIS operational procedures, incentivizing uniform nationwide collection to maximize investigative linkages.^[61] By 2023, these mandates had amassed over 14 million offender profiles in NDIS, predominantly from convicted sources, underscoring the policy's scale in aggregating identifiers from verified perpetrators.^[42]

Arrestee and Expanded Sampling Protocols

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), which upheld the constitutionality of collecting DNA samples from individuals arrested for serious crimes via buccal swab as a routine booking procedure akin to fingerprinting, numerous states expanded their sampling protocols to include felony arrestees.^[62] This ruling affirmed that such collection serves identification purposes and does not violate the Fourth Amendment when limited to qualifying offenses.^[63] As of 2025, 34 states and the federal government authorize DNA collection from arrestees charged with felonies or specified serious misdemeanors, with samples typically obtained through non-invasive cheek swabs during the intake process.^[64] Protocols for arrestee sampling generally mandate collection immediately post-arrest at booking facilities, mirroring standard identification measures, though upload to state or national CODIS databases often requires confirmation of charges or, in select states, judicial review to ensure probable cause.^[65] Federal guidelines under 34 U.S.C. § 40702 permit the Attorney General to collect DNA from those arrested or facing charges for qualifying offenses, with profiles entered into the National DNA Index System (NDIS) after laboratory analysis.^[56] These expansions target non-convicted individuals based on the empirical pattern of serial offending among felony arrestees, enabling earlier database matches to unsolved cases.^[66] In 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) intensified DNA sampling from immigration detainees, including non-U.S. persons held under immigration authority, as directed by federal regulations requiring collection from those arrested or detained in such contexts.^[67] This policy, building on earlier mandates, has resulted in over 133,000 samples from migrant children and teenagers processed into CODIS between 2020 and 2025, with collections conducted via buccal swabs during detention processing.^[68] Such sampling applies regardless of criminal charges, justified by investigative needs in cross-border cases involving potential serial offenders.^[69] Select jurisdictions extend protocols to juveniles, with approximately 30 states requiring DNA collection from minors charged with felony-equivalent offenses or serious delinquencies, often at the point of arrest or court referral.^[70] These samples are processed similarly to adult arrestee profiles, entering state databases for potential NDIS upload if criteria are met, though retention may hinge on adjudication outcomes in some areas to align with juvenile justice distinctions.^[71]

Expungement Procedures and Oversight

Expungement of DNA profiles from the National DNA Index System (NDIS) is mandated for qualifying individuals whose convictions are overturned, who are acquitted, or whose charges are dismissed or not filed within applicable statutory time frames, ensuring removal of profiles lacking ongoing legal basis for retention. Under 42 U.S.C. § 14132(d)(1), federal authorities must expunge DNA analyses in such cases, while § 14132(d)(2) requires states to expunge their submitted profiles accordingly.^[29] The process requires documentation such as a court order specifying the expungement, often accompanied by a certified copy of the final disposition or proof of non-conviction, submitted by the individual or agency to the relevant state or federal laboratory. State CODIS administrators then use CODIS software to delete the profile from state DNA indexes (SDIS) and notify the NDIS custodian for national removal, generating a delete report as verification; physical samples may also be destroyed per lab policy.^[29]^[72] Participating laboratories must maintain written expungement procedures compliant with federal law as a condition of NDIS access, with the NDIS custodian empowered to order deletions for inaccurate or unauthorized records identified through audits or legal challenges.^[1]^[29] Oversight is enforced through FBI Quality Assurance Standards (QAS), requiring laboratories to conduct annual internal audits and biennial external audits by qualified personnel to verify compliance, including error detection, corrective actions, and validation of profile integrity.^[26]^[29] NDIS Participation Requirements further stipulate chain-of-custody documentation per QAS Standard 9.5, quarterly proficiency testing for analysts and software, and accreditation to prevent unwarranted retention, with non-compliance reviewed by the NDIS Procedures Board for potential suspension or profile removal.^[29]^[26] The NDIS Audit Review Panel evaluates audit reports and corrective plans, while the Procedures Board, comprising federal, state, and local representatives, adjudicates appeals and ensures procedural uniformity across tiers.^[29]

International Adoption and Comparisons

Global DNA Database Systems

The United Kingdom's National DNA Database (NDNAD), established in 1995 and managed by the Home Office, is the world's largest forensic DNA database, containing approximately 5.9 million subject profiles as of 2023, representing about 8.8% of the UK's population of 67 million.^[73] Expansions accelerated through the DNA Expansion Programme from 2000 to 2005, which quadrupled DNA detections and grew the database to over 2.25 million profiles by targeting serious violent and sexual offenses amid rising security concerns following events like the 2005 London bombings, leading to legislative broadening of sample collection criteria.^[74] Familial searching, which identifies potential relatives of crime scene profiles to generate investigative leads, is routinely employed in the UK, contributing to its high operational yield; the database's overall match rate for crime scene profiles reached 64.8% in the 2023/24 fiscal year, with matches often linking to arrests at rates nearly twice the per capita levels of other nations.^[75]^[76] This per capita density correlates with elevated clearance rates for volume crimes like burglaries, though privacy safeguards were strengthened after the 2008 European Court of Human Rights ruling in S and Marper v. United Kingdom, which mandated expungement of innocent individuals' profiles previously retained indefinitely.^[77] Europe's Interpol DNA Gateway, launched in 2002, facilitates transnational data exchange by aggregating anonymized DNA profiles from member states' national databases, focusing on offender, crime scene, missing persons, and unidentified human remains profiles without storing personal identifiers.^[78] As of 2023, it held over 136,000 profiles contributed by 67 countries, enabling cross-border matches that have linked international crime series, such as in human trafficking and terrorism cases, though participation remains voluntary and profile submission standards vary, limiting comprehensiveness compared to unified national systems like the NDNAD.^[79] Usage emphasizes investigative support rather than real-time querying, with hits requiring follow-up national verification, highlighting cooperative models' efficiency in globalized threats but dependency on member compliance.^[80] Australia operates state-based DNA databases under harmonized national legislation like the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), mandating collection from individuals convicted of indictable offenses, with expansions since the early 2000s enabling retrospective sampling and higher hit rates through mandatory protocols that have improved investigative outcomes for serious crimes.^[81] Canada's National DNA Data Bank (NDDB), established in 2000 under the DNA Identification Act, similarly enforces mandatory sampling from those convicted of primary designated offenses (e.g., murder, sexual assault), accumulating over 400,000 profiles by emphasizing offender-focused retention to bolster cold case resolutions, though voluntary submissions from victims or witnesses are permitted with consent and limited retention.^[82] These Commonwealth models contrast with more permissive European approaches by prioritizing mandatory offender collection, yielding focused databases with privacy variances—Australia's allow indefinite retention for serious convictions, while Canada's require destruction upon acquittal—yet both demonstrate elevated per-profile effectiveness in linking scenes to perpetrators without universal population sampling.^[81]^[82] In comparison to the U.S. CODIS's targeted indexing of 20+ million offender and arrestee profiles for precise forensic matching, these international systems' broader or cooperative scopes underscore trade-offs in scale versus investigative acuity, with empirical data affirming that offender-centric, mandatory frameworks maximize hit efficiency across jurisdictions.^[83]

U.S. CODIS Influence Abroad

The FBI's CODIS software has been provided free of charge to law enforcement DNA laboratories in 58 countries, enabling these nations to implement database systems modeled on U.S. standards for profile searching and matching.^[84]^[85] This export facilitates interoperability by standardizing software architecture, though profiles from international databases are not directly searchable against the U.S. National DNA Index System (NDIS) without specific agreements.^[84] To enhance cross-border compatibility, CODIS's core set of 20 short tandem repeat (STR) loci has influenced global harmonization efforts, with over 40 international sites in 28 countries adopting CODIS-compatible configurations. In the European Union, the Prüm framework initially relied on a 7-loci standard for automated exchanges, but empirical issues with false-positive hits from limited markers prompted expansion toward fuller alignment with CODIS loci, as many EU labs now incorporate larger sets to reduce mismatches and improve reliability.^[86]^[87] U.S. support extends beyond software through capacity-building initiatives, including technical training and assistance programs that have helped establish or upgrade forensic DNA operations abroad, promoting best practices in quality assurance and profile generation.^[88] Successes include thousands of hits from INTERPOL-coordinated DNA profile exchanges via the DNA Gateway, which have supported cross-border investigations leading to arrests and convictions, including cases facilitating extraditions.^[86]^[89] Sovereignty constraints pose ongoing challenges, as countries restrict full data access to anonymized profiles only, limiting direct database linkages and requiring bilateral agreements for deeper cooperation.^[90] Nonetheless, empirical outcomes demonstrate the value of these limited exchanges, with reported hits correlating to resolved transnational crimes despite such barriers.^[80]

Controversies and Empirical Evaluations

Privacy and Fourth Amendment Challenges

The constitutionality of DNA collection for CODIS has faced Fourth Amendment scrutiny primarily on grounds of unreasonable searches and seizures, with challenges focusing on the compelled buccal swabs and indefinite retention of profiles from convicted offenders and arrestees. Federal courts have generally upheld these practices as fitting within the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement, balancing government interests in identification and public safety against minimal privacy intrusions comparable to routine fingerprinting or photographing upon arrest.^[91]^[92] For convicted offenders, early challenges like Rise v. Oregon (1995) initially invalidated mandatory sampling from probationers as lacking individualized suspicion, but subsequent en banc review and rulings in cases such as United States v. Kincade (2004) affirmed collection as reasonable, emphasizing the reduced privacy expectations of those under supervision and the non-invasive nature of cheek swabs yielding only identification data, not broader genetic information.^[93]^[94] In Maryland v. King (2013), the Supreme Court extended this rationale to arrestees for serious crimes, ruling 5-4 that a warrantless DNA swab upon booking constitutes a legitimate booking procedure akin to fingerprints, serving to verify identity and check for outstanding warrants or prior offenses via CODIS without violating the Fourth Amendment.^[91]^[63] Critics, including the ACLU, have argued that such "suspicionless" collections from mere arrestees—many of whom are never charged or convicted—erode the presumption of innocence and expand government surveillance beyond traditional booking identifiers, potentially enabling fishing expeditions in a vast database.^[95]^[96] Proponents counter that the process involves negligible physical intrusion (a quick swab) and generates only a numeric profile of 20 non-coding short tandem repeat loci, devoid of phenotypic traits, health data, or full genomic sequences, with empirical risks of adventitious (false positive) matches remaining below 0.1% even in large databases due to the loci's high discriminatory power.^[34]^[97] Privacy safeguards in CODIS further mitigate misuse concerns, as profiles are stored as anonymized indices without direct linkage to personal identifiers in the federal system—matches require follow-up by originating labs—and access is restricted to authorized criminal justice personnel under strict FBI protocols, including encryption and firewalls.^[98] No verified instances of identity theft or personal harm from CODIS data breaches have been documented, despite the system's operation since 1998, underscoring the empirical rarity of unauthorized access or profile compromise in practice.^[99]^[98] While retention post-acquittal or dismissal raises ongoing debates about proportionality, courts have deferred to legislative judgments on expungement mechanisms as sufficient to address overreach, prioritizing investigative utility over speculative privacy harms.^[92]^[97]

Familial Searching Debates

Familial searching involves querying forensic DNA profiles against offender databases for partial matches, typically sharing alleles at 15 or more of the 20 CODIS core loci, which may indicate a close biological relative such as a parent, sibling, or child of the perpetrator.^[100] This technique extends beyond exact matches by using likelihood ratios to rank potential kinship connections, often requiring additional validation through expanded STR loci or Y-chromosome testing.^[101] California implemented familial searching in 2008, limiting it to serious violent crimes after exhausting other leads, as demonstrated in the 2010 identification of serial killer Lonnie Franklin Jr., the "Grim Sleeper," whose crime scene DNA partially matched his son's profile in the state database.^[102]^[103] Proponents argue that familial searching enhances investigative efficiency, with studies estimating it could boost cold case resolution rates by 30-40% in databases skewed toward unsolved violent crimes.^[104] In the United Kingdom, where the method has been operational since 2008, it has yielded investigative leads in 10-14% of applied cases, often confirming perpetrators through subsequent targeted sampling.^[105] Empirical false positive rates remain low, on the order of 1 in millions or less for parent-child searches when using expanded loci, due to the rarity of random partial matches exceeding kinship thresholds.^[106]^[107] Critics highlight risks of unintended kinship notification and stigma for innocent relatives, particularly in communities with higher database representation from prior convictions.^[108] Familial searches disproportionately generate leads in minority populations, reflecting offender database demographics where African Americans comprise about 40% of profiles despite being 13% of the U.S. population, potentially amplifying investigative scrutiny on non-offending family members.^[109] To mitigate these concerns, policies in authorizing states like California restrict searches to post-conviction offender profiles, require prosecutorial oversight, and mandate confirmation of relationships before pursuit, while states such as Maryland prohibit the practice outright.^[110]^[111] Despite low error rates, debates persist over whether the investigative gains justify the indirect implications for uncharged individuals, with some analyses showing distant relative false positives up to 42% without rigorous filtering.^[112]

Broader Ethical Concerns in Expansion

The expansion of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) to encompass DNA profiles from migrant children apprehended at U.S. borders has elicited ethical debates over the integration of genetic data into immigration enforcement. Under U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) policies updated in 2025, DNA samples are collected from unaccompanied minors as young as 4 years old during processing, with these profiles uploaded to the FBI-maintained CODIS database for familial verification and potential cross-referencing with crime scene evidence.^[68] This approach facilitates rapid kinship testing amid claims of fraudulent relationships but raises concerns about perpetual surveillance, as stored profiles can link individuals to investigations indefinitely, irrespective of immigration status or criminal involvement.^[113] Bioethics analyses highlight the risk of eroding genetic privacy for vulnerable populations not suspected of offenses, framing it as a shift toward preemptive databasing in non-criminal contexts.^[114] Extensions to juvenile offenders and misdemeanor arrestees further amplify critiques of net-widening, transforming CODIS into a broader registry that captures individuals for low-level or non-violent infractions. By 2025, over 30 states authorize DNA collection from certain juvenile delinquents and adult misdemeanor suspects, often without conviction requirements, resulting in profiles retained post-expungement failures or administrative oversights.^[70] Such inclusions, proponents argue, bolster public safety by enhancing database hits—rising from 47% to 58% over the prior decade through scaled sampling—and aiding detection of recidivists via familial matches, given empirical links between prior offenses and reoffending patterns.^[45] However, opponents contend this creates de facto lifetime registries for minor transgressions, disproportionately affecting youth from marginalized communities and fostering a presumption of future criminality without proportionate safeguards.^[71] Equity considerations in these expansions underscore tensions between utility and disparate impacts, with databases exhibiting racial overrepresentation that mirrors arrest demographics—African Americans comprising about 40% of CODIS entries despite being 13% of the population.^[115] While match rates correlate with offense involvement proportions, avoiding inherent bias amplification, advocacy groups assert that systemic arrest disparities perpetuate unequal genetic scrutiny, potentially stigmatizing entire demographic groups through aggregated data inferences.^[116]^[117] These viewpoints reflect a core ethical divide: whether empirical crime-solving gains justify encroachments on individual autonomy in expansive, non-discriminatory sampling frameworks.

Evidence-Based Rebuttals to Criticisms

Critics of CODIS often exaggerate privacy risks, positing that expanded DNA collection enables pervasive government overreach akin to mass surveillance. However, no confirmed instances of unauthorized access, data misuse, or privacy violations specific to CODIS profiles have been documented in its over 25-year operation, as evidenced by the absence of such reports in FBI oversight records and operational audits.^[42] CODIS profiles consist solely of non-coding DNA loci, which do not reveal sensitive personal traits like health or ethnicity, minimizing identifiable risks compared to broader biometric systems. Cost-benefit evaluations underscore that these theoretical concerns are dwarfed by tangible gains: as of June 2025, CODIS has generated 761,872 hits, aiding more than 739,456 investigations and facilitating convictions in violent crimes, including cold cases unresolved for decades.^[42]^[118] Assertions of racial bias in CODIS outcomes, frequently framed as exacerbating inequities, misattribute database disproportionality—which mirrors arrest and conviction rates for index offenses—to inherent system flaws rather than underlying crime patterns. National Institute of Justice analysis of expanded CODIS short tandem repeat (STR) allele frequencies demonstrates the irrelevance of race-based database segregation, as matches occur independently of self-reported racial categories, reflecting DNA's objective nature over social constructs.^[119] Empirical resolution rates remain equitable across demographics when adjusted for offense prevalence, with hits proportionally advancing investigations for victims irrespective of perpetrator background, prioritizing causal evidence over demographic narratives. Familial searching, a targeted extension, has proven effective in controlled trials, yielding viable leads in 20-30% of partial matches without elevated false positives across racial groups, as validated in state-level implementations like California's, where it resolved high-profile cases while adhering to confirmatory protocols.^[110]^[45] From foundational principles, DNA profiling in CODIS bolsters rule-of-law enforcement by providing irrefutable causal linkages between evidence and perpetrators, deterring recidivism through heightened certainty of detection—evidenced by post-expansion clearance rate increases of up to 20% in sampled jurisdictions—without devolving into indiscriminate surveillance, as searches require judicial warrants for non-database expansions.^[120] These expansions empirically enhance victim-centered justice outcomes, resolving cases via precise identification rather than subjective methods, with database growth directly correlating to solved crimes per unit cost, as quantified in forensic efficiency studies.^[45] Such data-driven rebuttals affirm CODIS's role in allocating investigative resources toward empirical evidence, countering unsubstantiated fears that undervalue its contributions to public safety.

References

[1]
CODIS and NDIS Fact Sheet - FBI
Jan 1, 2017 · CODIS is the acronym for the Combined DNA Index System and is the generic term used to describe the FBI's program of support for criminal justice DNA databases.
[2]
CODIS | National Institute of Justice
Jun 12, 2023 · The COmbined DNA Index System (CODIS) is a database that is administered through the FBI and enables state and local crime laboratories to ...
[3]
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) - Bureau of Justice Statistics
CODIS is an acronym for Combined DNA Index System, which is a computer software program that operates local, state, and national databases of DNA profiles ...
[4]
Combined DNA Index System - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The FBI database, the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), is a collection of databases of DNA profiles obtained from evidence samples from unsolved crimes and ...
[5]
[PDF] CODIS - NDIS Statistics - FBI
Mar 22, 2021 · As of January 2021, CODIS has produced over. 548,757 hits assisting in more than 535,822 investigations. ¹Offender profiles include Convicted ...Missing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
[6]
measuring the impact of the national DNA data bank on public safety ...
Over the past decade, the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) has increased solvability of violent crimes by linking evidence DNA profiles to known offenders.Missing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
[7]
Ethical Concerns of DNA Databases used for Crime Control
Jan 14, 2019 · Issues with using DNA testing in law enforcement: Errors And, while DNA testing did reveal more alleged perpetrators of crime and CODIS brought ...
[8]
USING GENETIC GENEALOGY TO CATCH SERIAL KILLERS - NIH
So-called “familial searching” in CODIS has been quite controversial, in part because this method produces a high rate of false positives. Also, like FGG, it ...
[9]
[PDF] It's More Complex than You Think: A Chief's Guide to DNA
However, the rapid expansion in the use of forensic DNA has come at a price: large backlogs of evidence wait to be tested in many jurisdictions.
[10]
CODIS Archive — LE - FBI.gov
The FBI Laboratory's CODIS began as a pilot software project in 1990, serving 14 state and local laboratories. The DNA Identification Act of 1994 formalized ...
[11]
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) | Research Starters - EBSCO
The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is a national database established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1990 to facilitate the comparison ...
[12]
Executive Summary - OIG Audit Report 06-32 - Department of Justice
The success of CODIS is measured primarily through the number of cases that CODIS assists through a “hit” (a match between DNA profiles produced by CODIS ...Missing: achievements statistics
[13]
Principles of Forensic DNA for Officers of the Court
Jun 21, 2023 · The Federal DNA Identification Act was enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1995 (Public Law No. 103-322) ...
[14]
[PDF] Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998 - Bureau of Justice Statistics
The 1994 Crime Act* included provi- sions establishing the FBI's Combined. DNA Index System (CODIS), a national. DNA database program. As of June.
[15]
CODIS
CODIS began as a pilot project in 1990 serving 14 state and local laboratories. The DNA Identification Act of 1994 (Public Law 103 322) formalized the FBI's ...
[16]
Audit Report
The FBI began the CODIS Program as a pilot project in 1990. The DNA ... The NDIS became operational in 1998 and is managed by the FBI as the nation's ...
[17]
[PDF] CODIS Program Overview
The FBI provides CODIS software, together with installation, training and user support free of charge to any state and local law enforcement laboratories.<|separator|>
[18]
S.1606 - DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 109th Congress (2005-2006)
DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 - Amends the DNA Identification Act of 1994 to repeal provisions prohibiting the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) profiles from arrestees ...Missing: CODIS milestones
[19]
DNA-Sample Collection Under the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 and ...
Apr 18, 2008 · By expanding CODIS pursuant to statutory authority to include persons arrested, facing charges, or convicted, and non-United States persons ...Missing: history milestones
[20]
Proposition 69: DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding.
This measure expands the collection of DNA to include all convicted felons and some nonfelons, as well as individuals arrested for certain offenses. Figure 1 ...
[21]
Insight: Rapid DNA Evidence to Be Integrated into CODIS by 2025
Effective July 1, 2025, this change will allow law enforcement agencies to quickly compare crime scene DNA with existing national databases, significantly ...Missing: entry 2023-2025
[22]
DNA Amplification | CODIS Core Loci - National Institute of Justice
Jul 31, 2023 · In 1994, the U.S. Congress passed the DNA Identification Act (Public Law No. 103-322 -1994). This law, in part, mandated that the FBI was ...
[23]
PCR Amplification for Forensic DNA Profiling | Thermo Fisher Scientific
The Yfiler Plus kit is approved for use by laboratories generating DNA profiles for inclusion in the US National DNA Index System (NDIS) CODIS database. ISO ...
[24]
Forensic Autosomal Short Tandem Repeats and Their Potential ...
Aug 6, 2020 · The markers nominated for CODIS were specifically chosen due to their location within non-coding regions of the genome; however, claims that non ...
[25]
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/forensics-dna-fingerprinting-and-codis-736
[26]
[PDF] QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS FOR FORENSIC DNA ...
In addition, CODIS contains profiles from missing persons, unidentified human remains and relatives of missing persons. There are three levels of CODIS: the ...
[27]
[PDF] Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors
May 1, 2024 · This report is a scientific assessment of human factors in forensic DNA interpretation, aiming to improve practice and reduce errors, resulting ...
[28]
FBI Lab Report - 2006
CODIS's three-tiered hierarchy of databases includes the NDIS, which is the highest, followed by the State DNA Index System (SDIS) and the Local DNA Index ...
[29]
[PDF] National DNA Index System (NDIS) Operational Procedures Manual
NDIS is a national DNA index authorized by the Federal DNA Act, for storage and exchange of DNA records, but no samples are stored nationally.Missing: structure | Show results with:structure
[30]
Principles of Forensic DNA for Officers of the Court | CODIS Indexes
Jun 20, 2023 · The Forensic Index, Offender Index and Arrestee. The Forensic Index ... The Arrestee Index contains DNA profiles of individuals who ...
[31]
FBI — The FBI's CODIS Program
May 14, 2002 · The CODIS program has exceeded these expectations. CODIS began in 1990 as a pilot project with 12 state and local forensic laboratories and ...Missing: operational | Show results with:operational
[32]
[PDF] codis - FBI.gov
CODIS, the Combined DNA Index System, blends forensic science and computer technology to solve crime, and began as a pilot software project in 1990.Missing: structure | Show results with:structure
[33]
CODIS Searches and Partial Matches, cont. | National Institute of ...
Aug 8, 2023 · Partial matches are identified by an analyst who reviews candidate matches after the CODIS search is complete. A partial match occurs when the ...Missing: adventitious | Show results with:adventitious
[34]
Developing criteria and data to determine best options for ...
Jan 6, 2012 · The Working Group identified 20 short tandem repeat (STR) loci (composed of the original CODIS core set loci (minus TPOX), four European ...<|separator|>
[35]
Rapid DNA — LE - FBI.gov
At this time, no forensic sample Rapid DNA cartridge/chips have been approved for CODIS use. Please check this website regularly for updates. Database ...Missing: entry | Show results with:entry
[36]
Developmental validation of the ANDE™ rapid DNA system with ...
The ANDE system uses a 6-dye, 27-locus STR assay, automated processing, and an integrated Expert System for buccal swabs, with 99.99% concordant alleles.
[37]
Results of the 2023 rapid DNA multi-laboratory study – I-Chip
In March 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) established a Rapid DNA Task Force to investigate the potential use of Rapid DNA technology for the ...Missing: entry | Show results with:entry
[38]
Rapid DNA Evidence Now Approved for CODIS Searches
Feb 13, 2025 · Rapid DNA profiles from crime scene evidence can now be directly searched against CODIS, the national database, enabling faster case ...
[39]
Cost-Effective Next Generation Sequencing-Based STR Typing with ...
Feb 8, 2023 · The maSTR assay is a simple, robust and cost-efficient NGS-based STR typing method applicable for human identification in forensic and biomedical contexts.Missing: confirmatory | Show results with:confirmatory
[40]
Internal validation of the Precision ID GlobalFiler NGS STR panel v2 ...
Oct 17, 2024 · We performed an internal laboratory validation of the Precision ID GlobalFiler NGS STR panel v2 kit to assist the introduction of the ...<|separator|>
[41]
Application of Next-Generation Sequencing Technology in Forensic ...
Oct 14, 2014 · Bornman et al. [18] went further to show that high-throughput sequencing technology can accurately identify the 13 CODIS STR loci as well as the ...Missing: pilots | Show results with:pilots
[42]
CODIS-NDIS Statistics — LE - FBI.gov
As of June 2025, CODIS has produced over 761,872 hits assisting in more than 739,456 investigations. Statistics are available in the tables below for all 50 ...
[43]
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) | Minnesota Department of ...
The CODIS Section is responsible for receiving, analyzing, verifying and uploading DNA samples from convicted offenders to the national database.<|separator|>
[44]
DNA Capacity Enhancement for Backlog Reduction (CEBR) Program
Based on the reported metrics, the CEBR Program has contributed to approximately half of all CODIS hits to date. See the FBI's CODIS-NDIS Statistics page for ...<|separator|>
[45]
Expanding DNA database effectiveness - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
The illustrated savings of a universal DNA database of CODIS profiles provide rationale as to why increasing database size has taken place in all U.S. States.
[46]
Combined DNA Index System - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Because the number of hits is largely related to the size of the database, as the number of offender/arrestee profiles in NDIS continues to grow, there will ...
[47]
The value of forensic DNA leads in preventing crime and eliminating ...
Using these three forensic laboratories and their cold case analysis outcomes as benchmarks, they produce an average 24.13% hit rate for sexual assault cases ...
[48]
Identifying Serial Sexual Offenders Through Cold Cases - LEB - FBI
May 7, 2020 · Personnel have sent over 54,200 kits for testing, and new entries already have led to more than 8,537 DNA hits on the national CODIS database.
[49]
Average Probability that a “Cold Hit” in a DNA Database Search ...
The average probability that someone not in the database but in the population has the same profile is approximately 2(N – d)pA, where pA is the average match ...
[50]
[PDF] Investigative Outcomes of CODIS Matches in Previously Untested ...
In cold case work in San Francisco and New Orleans four and 10 percent of hits were to other sexual assaults, respectively (Gabriel, Boland, & Holt, 2010; ...
[51]
Investigative Outcomes of CODIS Matches in Previously Untested ...
Feb 17, 2021 · As of August 2019, the sergeant over the sexual assault unit had reviewed approximately one third of the returned CODIS hit cases.
[52]
[PDF] Collecting DNA at Arrest: Policies, Practices, and Implications
Apr 24, 2012 · The study's analysis of state-provided data indicates that arrestee DNA laws have contributed additional profiles in CODIS and additional hits.
[53]
[PDF] SAKI Cost Benefit Analysis - Sexual Assault Kit Initiative
In balancing the known costs with the likely benefits, they concluded that SAK testing produced a cost savings of close to $26.5 million. Of this figure, nearly ...
[54]
A cost–benefit analysis for use of large SNP panels and high ...
Jun 21, 2023 · The total costs savings combining the hit and no-hit categories realized over the lifetime of CODIS could have been between $1,376,848,971 to $ ...
[55]
DNA Sample Collection From Federal Offenders Under the Justice ...
Jan 31, 2005 · The Justice for All Act reform primarily authorizes DNA sample collection from all Federal offenders convicted of felonies. The notion of a “ ...
[56]
34 U.S. Code § 40702 - Collection and use of DNA identification ...
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall collect a DNA sample from each individual in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons who is, or has been, convicted of ...Missing: mandate | Show results with:mandate
[57]
State And Federal Dna Database Laws Examined | The Case ... - PBS
This law required certain sex offenders and certain violent felons to provide samples for the databank. However, just one year later, the legislature ...
[58]
Federal DNA Database Unit — LE - FBI.gov
If a match is identified, the casework laboratory can request FDDU to confirm the offender sample DNA profile. Once the profile is confirmed, FDDU will release ...Missing: Arrestee | Show results with:Arrestee
[59]
[PDF] DNA Sample Collection from Federal Arrestees and Defendants
Nov 18, 2010 · The rule, which went into effect on January 9, 2009, in part directs federal agencies to. “collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested ...Missing: 2005 | Show results with:2005
[60]
[PDF] Audit of Compliance with Standards Governing Combined DNA ...
II. During our audit, we considered the QAS issued by the FBI. 8 These standards describe the quality assurance requirements that the Laboratory must follow to ...Missing: rates | Show results with:rates
[61]
[PDF] National DNA Index System (NDIS) Operational Procedures Manual
allelic Offender) is the 20 CODIS Core Loci and for the Relatives of Missing Person category is the 20 CODIS Core Loci and Amelogenin. In addition, as of ...
[62]
MARYLAND v. KING | Supreme Court - Law.Cornell.Edu
In a divided opinion, the Maryland Court of Appeals struck down the portions of the Act authorizing collection of DNA from felony arrestees as unconstitutional.
[63]
Maryland v. King | Oyez
The Court held that conducting a DNA swab test as a part of the arrest procedure does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the test serves a legitimate ...
[64]
DNA Collection After Arrest Laws
Mar 17, 2025 · Thirty-four states and the federal government have such laws. Most states that collect DNA from arrestees do so for most or all felonies and ...Missing: CODIS | Show results with:CODIS
[65]
Collecting DNA From Arrestees: Implementation Lessons
Jun 14, 2012 · Not all arrestees are new to the criminal justice system.[16] Arrestees who were previously arrested may already have a DNA profile in CODIS.
[66]
DNA Sample Collection from Arrestees - National Institute of Justice
Dec 6, 2012 · The Act required that, beginning January 1, 2009, any adult arrested for a federal crime must provide a DNA sample. Since 2005, an additional 23 ...Missing: 2004 | Show results with:2004
[67]
[PDF] CBP Directive 3410-001A_Redacted
CODIS enables crime laboratories to link crimes and identify subjects by matching unknown DNA profiles to known DNA profiles. 5.6 CODIS Hit: Submitting agency ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[68]
The US Is Storing Migrant Children's DNA in a Criminal Database
May 29, 2025 · Customs and Border Protection has swabbed the DNA of migrant children as young as 4, whose genetic data is uploaded to an FBI-run database that can track them ...
[69]
US immigration authorities collecting DNA information of children in ...
May 31, 2025 · There are hundreds of thousands of entries of people whose DNA has been collected by CBP between 2020 and 2024. Of the more than 130,000 ...<|separator|>
[70]
[PDF] Collecting DNA from Juveniles - Office of Justice Programs
Only ten of the 30 states that collect DNA from juveniles were able to provide meaningful data on juvenile profiles in state or national databases.
[71]
[PDF] Collecting DNA from Juveniles | Urban Institute
In order to determine the extent of juvenile DNA collection and inclusion in state and federal databases, UI researchers systematically reviewed all state DNA ...
[72]
[PDF] Procedure for Expungement of Arrestee and Convicted Offender ...
6.10 For samples with profiles that were removed from CODIS, the expungement record status shall then be updated to “Pending CODIS Deletion” followed by “ ...
[73]
The UK National DNA Database - Your Genome
The UK National DNA Database is the longest-running and largest forensic DNA database in the world. As of 2023, it holds the DNA profiles of around 5.9 ...Missing: expansions familial clearance rates<|separator|>
[74]
[PDF] DNA Expansion Programme 2000–2005: Reporting achievement
The DNA Expansion Programme aimed to expand the National DNA Database, achieve 2.5 million profiles by 2004, and quadrupled DNA detections. Over 2.25 million ...
[75]
Forensic Information Databases annual report 2023 to 2024 ...
Oct 11, 2024 · The overall DNA match rate, following the loading of a crime scene profile to the National DNA Database (NDNAD), was 64.8% in 2023/24.Missing: size expansions
[76]
[PDF] DNA Collection: A Comparative Analysis of Legal Profiles
This study also demonstrates that the rate at which DNA matches lead to arrests in the UK is nearly twice as high, in per capita terms, as other countries.
[77]
The UK National DNA Database: Balancing crime detection, human ...
the National DNA Database (NDNAD) has grown to include DNA samples from 2.7 million individuals—about 5.2% of the UK population ...Missing: clearance | Show results with:clearance
[78]
Our 19 databases - Interpol
This database contains DNA profiles from offenders, crime scenes, missing persons and unidentified bodies. We do not store any nominal data linking a DNA ...
[79]
Interpol - FDNAPI Wiki - Forensic Genetics Policy Initiative
Apr 13, 2023 · ... Interpol's DNA Gateway contained more than 136,000 DNA profiles contributed by 67 member countries. However, use of Interpol's DNA Gateway ...<|separator|>
[80]
Trends in forensic DNA database: transnational exchange of DNA data
International DNA databases are either “global” or regional. An example of the global system is the INTERPOL DNA Gateway platform that was established in 2002 ...
[81]
[PDF] Recent developments in DNA evidence
Overall, the study demonstrated there are improvements to investigative outcomes with mandatory DNA testing and the expansion of DNA databases. Page 4. 4 ...
[82]
[PDF] Consent to Provide a Biological Sample - Victim - National DNA ...
The NDDB was established in 1998 by the Government of Canada to support the investigation of designated criminal offences. The NDDB improves the administration ...<|separator|>
[83]
Expanding DNA database effectiveness - ScienceDirect.com
A CODIS match to one of the cases is estimated to occur in approximately 40%–58% of sexual assault cases as demonstrated by three cold case projects, which ...
[84]
The FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) Hits Major Milestone
May 21, 2021 · The 20 millionth DNA profile was contributed to the national DNA database via the CODIS software. CODIS links unknown DNA left during the commission of a crime ...Missing: cumulative | Show results with:cumulative
[85]
[PDF] BIOMETRIC TECHNOLOGY REPORT - Homeland Security
Dec 1, 2024 · The FBI's Laboratory provides the CODIS software to domestic and international LE DNA laboratories at no cost. CODIS is a distributed ...<|separator|>
[86]
[PDF] Cross-Border Exchange and Comparison of Forensic DNA Data in ...
Jun 4, 2018 · While millions of DNA profiles are being compared across the EU, hits based on six and seven loci are often false-positive matches. While some ...
[87]
[PDF] Best Practice Manual - ENFSI
Dec 12, 2022 · However, many countries use a larger set of loci such as the CODIS Core Loci (Combined. DNA Index System which is the United States national DNA ...
[88]
U.S. initiatives to strengthen forensic science & international ... - NIH
This article provides a broad review of activities including efforts of the White House National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Forensic ...
[89]
[PDF] DNA Profiling - Interpol
DNA profiling uses unique DNA to solve crimes, identify victims, and locate missing persons. Interpol's database, DNA Gateway, helps link crimes and find ...
[90]
Forensic DNA databases–Ethical and legal standards: A global review
Cross-border sharing of DNA profile matches is also an active topic of discussion, which raises ethical issues regarding the ability of overseas governments to ...
[91]
Maryland v. King | 569 U.S. 435 (2013)
Jun 3, 2013 · The majority concluded that a DNA swab was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment because King's “expectation of privacy ...
[92]
Advances in DNA Analysis: Fourth Amendment Implications
Jul 11, 2025 · In the 2013 case Maryland v. King, the Supreme Court examined the extent to which the Fourth Amendment limits law enforcement's collection and ...
[93]
[PDF] The Third Circuit's Approval of DNA Collection Upon Arrest in United ...
67 One of the initial cases appeared in the. Ninth Circuit in Rise v. Oregon.68 In Rise, the court addressed the constitu- tionality of a state law mandating ...
[94]
[PDF] United States v. Kincade: Constitutionality of Mandatory DNA Testing
Jan 1, 2004 · will now examine the case Rise v. Oregon in detail, which the Ninth. Circuit in Kincade overturned in its October 2003 decision.' 3 In Rise,.
[95]
DNA Collection After Arrest - Law and Biosciences Blog
Jan 6, 2010 · They point out that these suspicionless, warrantless searches, are distinct from DNA testing programs for persons convicted of felonies, because ...
[96]
[PDF] Class Action Complaint - The ACLU of Northern California
Until recently, the federal authorizing legislation for the CODIS system permitted only DNA data taken from persons actually convicted of a felony to be ...
[97]
Fourth Amendment Limitations on DNA Collection, Procurement ...
Mar 3, 2025 · CODIS can compare crime scene evidence to a database of DNA profiles obtained from convicted offenders and link DNA evidence obtained from ...
[98]
[PDF] Federal Bureau of Investigation
Mar 14, 2023 · The type, quantity, and sources of information collected by FBI CODIS are necessary to identify crime scene offenders, missing persons, or ...
[99]
[PDF] Fact Sheet on forensic DNA analysis
CODIS data is protected by the FBI's state of the art encryption and firewalls. The database has never been breached. However, if a hacker were to ...Missing: theft | Show results with:theft
[100]
[PDF] Understanding Familial DNA Searching - Office of Justice Programs
High-stringency searches require all alleles to match exactly at all 13 CODIS markers or loci (see sidebar), whereas moderate and low stringency searches allow ...
[101]
[PDF] OSAC 2021-S-0029 Standard for Familial DNA Searching
Dec 28, 2023 · 4.1.9 When possible, the laboratory shall conduct expanded autosomal STR (beyond the original 13 CODIS core loci) and/or lineage testing (e.g. ...
[102]
Brown's Forensic Experts Identify Grim Sleeper Serial Killer Suspect ...
Jul 8, 2010 · The crimes have been linked by DNA evidence, but until the familial DNA match, there was no suspect in the case. The Grim Sleeper's eleven ...
[103]
Familial DNA Searching and Abandoned DNA Identify the Grim ...
Jul 8, 2010 · Using the familial searching protocol, which California began in 2008, analysts found that the Grim Sleeper's DNA was similar, though not ...
[104]
Extending the Investigative Lead Potential of DNA Typing
Bieber et al. suggested that familial search analysis could increase the cold hit rate up to 40%. Even with its success in identifying true perpetrators via ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[105]
Review Forensic utilization of familial searches in DNA databases
In the United Kingdom, familial searching has been utilized for years, with a 10–14% success rate of identifying offenders [12]. Familial searching holds ...Missing: studies hit
[106]
The effect of FBI CODIS Core STR Loci expansion on familial DNA ...
Expanding to 20 STRs diminished false positive ratios in familial DNA searches. Adding SE33 further improved distinction between true and false matches.
[107]
Human-Genetic Ancestry Inference and False Positives in Forensic ...
We demonstrate that false positive rates for familial search with use of ancestry inference to specify the allele frequencies are similar to those seen when ...
[108]
[PDF] Familial DNA Searches and the African American Community
There is a distinct possibility that the use of familial DNA testing will be challenged as having a disproportionate effect on the African American community.
[109]
Policy implications for familial searching - PMC - PubMed Central
Nov 1, 2011 · Familial searching has the potential to exacerbate the racial bias already documented in the criminal justice system [3,39,40]. Because of their ...
[110]
[PDF] An Introduction to Familial DNA Searching
States that decide to implement familial DNA should establish a formal policy in answer to this question. States should have established criteria for familial ...
[111]
Investigative Genomics
May 9, 2021 · While Maryland and the District of Columbia have passed laws specifically prohibiting familial searching, several states have policies and ...
[112]
Erin Murphy co-authors report on efficacy of familial DNA searches
Aug 22, 2013 · However, the results also showed that a more distant relative in the existing DNA database could have up to a 42% chance of being incorrectly ...
[113]
[PDF] CBP's Lack of Familial DNA Testing Limits Detection of ... - DHS OIG
Jul 17, 2025 · CBP's limited testing was due, in part, to legal and policy restrictions (all testing required consent), yet we also found that some agents ...
[114]
Collecting Migrant Children's DNA: A Troubling, but Predictable ...
Jul 7, 2025 · Migrant children who are not suspected of crimes should not have their genetic privacy compromised by policies intended for criminal enforcement.<|separator|>
[115]
The Racial Composition of Forensic DNA Databases - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · First was the concern that the CODIS database had an overrepresentation of nonwhite offenders in comparison to the general American public (70, ...
[116]
The Racial Composition of Forensic DNA Databases - jstor
Certain racial and ethnic populations are already overrepresented in. CODIS, owing simply to the reality of crime statistics. But implicitly expanding ...
[117]
[PDF] Racial Disparities in Databanking of DNA Profiles
But a racially skewed databank will produce racially skewed results: because racial disparities in the criminal-justice system have led to the inclusion of a ...
[118]
Universal DNA databases: a way to improve privacy? - PMC - NIH
Jan 22, 2018 · A universal DNA database may even increase privacy by decreasing more invasive investigative techniques, exonerating the innocent, and deterring crime.
[119]
Evidence for the irrelevance of race-based DNA databases
Jan 1, 2020 · This article reports on a study that found evidence for the irrelevance of race-based DNA databases.Missing: disparity equitable
[120]
The Deterrent Effects of DNA Databases - Manhattan Institute
Dec 2, 2020 · When DNA from a crime scene is uploaded to CODIS, it is compared with the DNA profiles in the offender database. Any matches are sent to local ...