By MDBayNews Staff
Maryland lawmakers are weighing a proposal that could sharpen one of law enforcement’s most powerful modern investigative tools — the ability to use genetic genealogy to solve violent crimes that have remained unsolved for years.
The legislation, Maryland Senate Bill 678, would modify the procedures investigators must follow before using forensic genetic genealogical DNA analysis and search (FGGS) — a technique that has helped crack some of the most notorious cold cases in the United States.
Supporters say the bill strikes a careful balance between protecting privacy and giving investigators the tools needed to deliver justice to victims whose cases have gone cold.
Critics, however, warn the technology raises complex questions about genetic privacy and the rights of people whose DNA may indirectly become part of a criminal investigation.
A Powerful Tool for Solving Cold Cases
FGGS, also known as investigative genetic genealogy, has revolutionized cold-case investigations over the past decade.
The method works by combining traditional forensic DNA analysis with publicly accessible genealogy databases.
Investigators begin with biological evidence collected from a crime scene — typically blood, hair, or other biological material. Scientists extract DNA and build a genetic profile. If that profile does not match anyone in the national law enforcement database known as Combined DNA Index System, investigators may turn to genealogy databases.
Using those databases, analysts search for distant relatives of the unknown suspect — sometimes third or fourth cousins. From there, genealogists construct family trees and narrow down possible suspects through traditional investigative work.
The approach gained national attention after it was used to identify the suspect in the Golden State Killer case, a decades-old serial murder and rape investigation in California that had remained unsolved for more than 40 years.
Since then, law enforcement agencies across the country have used the method to solve hundreds of previously unsolved violent crimes.
Maryland Already Has Strict Rules
Maryland was one of the first states in the nation to regulate the practice.
Current state law requires investigators to obtain judicial approval before using genetic genealogy searches. That approval must be supported by a sworn affidavit explaining why the technique is necessary.
Investigators must generally show:
- The crime is serious — typically homicide, sexual assault, or a comparable threat to public safety.
- Traditional investigative methods have been exhausted.
- DNA analysis through the national CODIS database has failed to identify a suspect.
The goal of those requirements is to ensure the technique is used only as a last-resort investigative tool, not as a routine investigative shortcut.
What SB 678 Would Change
The new legislation sponsored by William G. Folden does not expand the categories of crimes eligible for genetic genealogy searches.
Instead, it focuses on clarifying the sworn affidavit requirements that investigators must meet before receiving judicial authorization.
Among the proposed changes:
- Investigators must certify that a traditional STR DNA profile has already been developed and searched in CODIS without producing a match — or that the evidence could not be uploaded to CODIS.
- The affidavit must confirm that reasonable investigative leads have been pursued and exhausted.
- In many cases, the crime must have occurred at least 15 years earlier, reinforcing that the technique should primarily target long-unsolved cases.
- Exceptions could still apply if investigators believe there is an ongoing threat to public safety.
The legislation effectively formalizes what many investigators already treat as best practice: using genetic genealogy only after conventional investigative methods have failed.
If approved, the bill would take effect October 1, 2026.
A Lifeline for Victims’ Families
For families of murder and sexual assault victims, genetic genealogy has become a rare source of hope.
Cold cases often stall for decades because suspects leave no fingerprints, witnesses disappear, or traditional DNA databases fail to produce a match.
Genetic genealogy changes that equation by expanding the investigative net beyond known offenders.
Even if the perpetrator has never been arrested or entered into a criminal DNA database, investigators may still identify distant relatives whose genetic markers provide clues about the suspect’s identity.
Supporters of the Maryland legislation argue that tightening the procedural rules while preserving the tool ensures investigators can continue pursuing justice for victims whose cases might otherwise remain unsolved forever.
For families who have spent decades waiting for answers, the technology can mean the difference between permanent uncertainty and long-delayed closure.
Privacy Concerns Remain
Despite its success in solving crimes, the technology has sparked intense debate among privacy advocates.
Unlike traditional DNA databases, genetic genealogy searches often rely on consumer genealogy services where people voluntarily upload their DNA for ancestry research.
Critics argue the practice can create a form of genetic dragnet, because investigators may indirectly analyze the DNA of millions of people who are not suspects and have no connection to the crime.
One person uploading a DNA sample could inadvertently expose distant relatives — sometimes people who never consented to having their genetic information used in criminal investigations.
Advocates have also raised concerns about:
- Potential misuse of genetic data.
- Security risks if genealogy databases are hacked.
- The possibility of government overreach if the technology expands beyond serious crimes.
Organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have called for stricter safeguards or clearer national standards governing genetic genealogy investigations.
Maryland’s Attempt at Balance
Maryland’s regulatory framework is often cited as one of the strictest in the country.
Existing law already requires several protections, including:
- Judicial authorization before any search can occur.
- Certification that other investigative methods have failed.
- Limits restricting the technique to serious violent crimes.
- Use of genealogy databases that clearly disclose potential law enforcement access.
- Reporting and data destruction requirements once an investigation concludes.
The proposed legislation appears designed to refine those safeguards, not weaken them.
By clarifying the affidavit requirements, lawmakers aim to ensure courts apply consistent standards when evaluating requests from investigators.
That approach attempts to preserve both sides of the debate — allowing law enforcement to solve violent crimes while preventing broad or premature use of genetic genealogy searches.
A National Debate
Across the country, legislatures and courts are still grappling with how to regulate investigative genetic genealogy.
Some states have embraced the technology with few restrictions. Others have imposed strict rules similar to Maryland’s.
Federal authorities have also issued guidance limiting the technique primarily to violent crimes and cases involving unidentified human remains.
But the legal questions surrounding genetic privacy remain unsettled.
Because genetic data inherently contains information about families — not just individuals — the technology challenges traditional legal frameworks designed for fingerprints or conventional DNA profiles.
As genetic databases grow larger, the investigative potential of genealogical searches will likely continue expanding.
The Stakes for Justice
For many Maryland families, the debate is not theoretical.
Every year, new cold cases are solved using genetic genealogy techniques.
Each resolution represents a family that finally receives answers after years — sometimes decades — of uncertainty.
Supporters of SB 678 argue the legislation reinforces Maryland’s careful oversight while ensuring investigators retain access to one of the most promising forensic tools developed in modern criminal investigations.
As lawmakers consider the bill this session, they face a familiar policy challenge: how to harness a powerful new technology while protecting the rights and privacy of the public.
For victims waiting for justice, the outcome could determine whether long-silent cases finally speak again.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.