Mr. Snydor says that he wants violent crimes to be solved, but that using partial DNA matches from relatives violates a person's constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure, often referred to as the right to privacy.
Here in Maryland, and especially in Baltimore, we have a serious problem with violent crime. Increasing the chance that violent crimes will actually be solved by the police will reduce violent crimes by both making people think twice before committing a violent crime and by getting them off the street sooner if they go ahead and commit the crime anyway.
There's no downside to preventing or solving violent crimes. If the police go after the wrong relative, the suspect will be exonerated by his or her own DNA unless the crime was committed by the suspect's identical twin. The only difference between catching a criminal based on fingerprints or security cameras and catching him by public DNA data is that the public DNA data is given by relatives, not by the criminal himself.
But sometimes it takes a relative to catch an elusive criminal. The Unabomber was caught only when he published his manifesto and his brother figured out who he was and told the police. Would Mr. Snydor have wanted the police to refrain from access to the brother's testimony because the Unabomber had a right to privacy?
People have been found innocent after long incarcerations by means of DNA. Let's use DNA in all the ways that it can be used here in the 21st century to catch violent criminals.