Editing DNA profiling (section)

===Surreptitious DNA collecting===
Police forces may collect DNA samples without a suspect's knowledge, and use it as evidence. The legality of the practice has been questioned in [[Australia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi26|title=The forensic use of DNA profiling| vauthors = Easteal PW, Easteal S |date=3 November 2017|website=Australian Institute of Criminology|language=en|access-date=18 February 2019|archive-date=19 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190219072937/https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi26|url-status=live}}</ref>

In the [[United States]], where it has been accepted, courts often rule that there is no [[expectation of privacy]] and cite ''[[California v. Greenwood]]'' (1988), in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] held that the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]] does not prohibit the [[Search warrant|warrantless]] search and seizure of [[Waste|garbage]] left for collection outside the [[curtilage]] of a [[home]]. Critics of this practice underline that this analogy ignores that "most people have no idea that they risk surrendering their genetic identity to the police by, for instance, failing to destroy a used coffee cup. Moreover, even if they do realize it, there is no way to avoid abandoning one's DNA in public."<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Harmon A | author-link1 = Amy Harmon | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/science/03dna.html | title = Lawyers Fight DNA Samples Gained on Sly | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20211025192256/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/science/03dna.html | archive-date=25 October 2021 | work = [[The New York Times]] | date = 3 April 2008 }}</ref>

The United States Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Maryland v. King]]'' (2013) that DNA sampling of prisoners arrested for serious crimes is constitutional.<ref>{{cite web|title=U.S. Supreme Court allows DNA sampling of prisoners|url=http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/06/03/US-Supreme-Court-allows-DNA-sampling-of-prisoners/UPI-45601370271128/#ixzz2VBFXuZve|publisher=UPI|access-date=3 June 2013|archive-date=10 June 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130610090445/http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/06/03/US-Supreme-Court-allows-DNA-sampling-of-prisoners/UPI-45601370271128/#ixzz2VBFXuZve|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf|title=Supreme Court of the United States – Syllabus: Maryland v. King, Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland|access-date=27 June 2017|archive-date=24 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170824051608/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite report | vauthors = Samuels JE, Davies EH, Pope DB | title = Collecting DNA at Arrest: Policies, Practices, and Implications. | date = June 2013 | url = https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242812.pdf | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151022134510/https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242812.pdf | archive-date=22 October 2015 | location = Washington, D.C. | publisher = [[Urban Institute]] | work = Justice Policy Center }}</ref>

In the [[United Kingdom]], the ''[[Human Tissue Act 2004]]'' prohibits private individuals from covertly collecting biological samples (hair, fingernails, etc.) for DNA analysis but exempts medical and criminal investigations from the prohibition.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Scientificdevelopmentgeneticsandbioethics/Tissue/TissueGeneralInformation/DH_4102169 | title = Human Tissue Act 2004 | publisher = UK | access-date = 7 April 2017 | archive-date = 6 March 2008 | archive-url = http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080306151453/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Scientificdevelopmentgeneticsandbioethics/Tissue/TissueGeneralInformation/DH_4102169 | url-status = dead}}</ref>