The American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Cato Institute have challenged New York City's police department over its secret DNA database in federal court. The advocacy organizations issued an urgent warning over a police tactic used to collect genetic material from individuals without obtaining a warrant or asking permission.
Civil rights attorneys caution that the practice exposes every American to secret surveillance because people constantly shed genetic material on items they touch in daily life. Individuals routinely leave trace amounts of DNA on drinking glasses, tissues, cigarette butts and other everyday objects.
According to court filings, officers allegedly bring individuals into specially prepared interview rooms and encourage them to drink from a cup, bottle or straw, or offer them a cigarette. Detectives then retrieve the discarded items to extract saliva and genetic material after the person leaves the room.
The legal challenge centers on Leslie v City of New York, a lawsuit brought by The Legal Aid Society as a proposed class action against the city's DNA collection program. At its core, the lawsuit questions whether secretly extracting DNA constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and whether municipal officials had legal authority to establish an independent database.
The Lawsuit and Suspect Index
New York City maintains an independent database known as the Suspect Index, which currently holds more than 34,000 searchable genetic profiles. Official figures cited in court documents show that the index contains exactly 34,872 searchable profiles maintained by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
The database allegedly includes genetic profiles from children, individuals who were never charged with crimes, and people who were acquitted, exonerated or explicitly ruled out as suspects. In one specific case cited by civil rights groups, detectives gave a 12-year-old boy a soda and later retrieved the discarded container to upload his DNA profile into the index.
Advocates state that police collection practices have disproportionately targeted Black and Hispanic New Yorkers. The legal brief contends that the city has operated the separate index for more than a decade without state authorization or legislative guardrails.
In July 2019, Shakira Leslie, then 23, was riding in the back seat of a friend's car when New York City Police Department officers stopped the vehicle for an alleged traffic violation. Officers searched the car and discovered a handgun inside a fanny pack belonging to the front-seat passenger.
Shakira Leslie Arrest and Interrogation
Although no contraband was found on Leslie, officers arrested everyone inside the vehicle and charged her with weapon possession. She was held at the precinct for approximately seven hours without food or water, and her charges were eventually dismissed after prosecutors chose not to indict her.
During her detention, officers escorted Leslie into an interrogation room that had been cleaned and prepared to capture her genetic material. She initially refused a drink, but relented after a detective told her "it would be some time before she had another opportunity to drink," according to the lawsuit.
After Leslie took a sip from a government-provided cup, the officer instructed her to keep drinking. Police then led her away in handcuffs, preventing her from taking the disposable cup, before returning to retrieve the container and extract DNA left in her saliva.
District Court Ruling and Appeal
On July 30, the ACLU, NYCLU and Cato Institute filed a supporting brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court to overturn a March 2026 ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The federal district judge ruled against Leslie, finding that she had abandoned any privacy interest in the disposable cup.
The district court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Maryland v King, which permitted law enforcement officers to collect DNA swabs during routine arrest booking procedures for serious crimes. However, attorneys representing Leslie argue that her case is fundamentally different because her genetic material was seized through a secret ruse rather than a regulated booking procedure.
Attorneys contend that retrieving a discarded item, extracting its genetic blueprint and repeatedly searching the profile against crime databases represent separate Fourth Amendment events requiring independent legal justification. They argue that Leslie did not voluntarily abandon the cup because police supplied it as part of an interrogation ruse and escorted her away in restraints.
Constitutional Rights and State Law
"The government cannot treat our DNA like it treats our garbage, and seize, search, and store it without a warrant," said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "Usually we rely on hypotheticals to highlight the dystopian possibilities of this kind of privacy invasion, but no hypothetical could be more troubling than New York City's actual practice: amassing thousands of people's DNA without their knowledge, their consent, or any court-ordered or legislative guardrails. If the Second Circuit does not intervene, all I can say is: New Yorkers, hold on to your trash."
The lawsuit separately alleges that the city's Suspect Index violates New York state law. State regulations governing the official New York DNA databank strictly limit who can be included and generally require a conviction for a qualifying crime before a profile can be permanently added or searched.
"For more than a decade, the NYPD has been operating a rogue DNA database not authorized by law," said Beth Haroules, director of disability justice litigation at the NYCLU. "No New Yorker should have their DNA taken illegally and stored in a secret database. This destructive practice disproportionately targets Black and brown New Yorkers and violates our Fourth Amendment rights. No court should allow this intrusion on our privacy."
Genetic Privacy Concerns and Official Responses
The legal brief cautions that biological samples hold far more sensitive information than standard identification profiles. Analyzing raw DNA can reveal medical predispositions, family lineages, unknown adoptions and misattributed paternity.
In response to the litigation, New York City Police Department spokesman Sgt Edward Riley stated in a previous statement that DNA collection is among the best practices of law enforcement. The New York City Law Department and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner declined to provide comment to reporters, and the NYPD did not immediately respond to additional inquiries from The Daily Mail.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet issued a decision on whether the collection and storage of Leslie's DNA violated the U.S. Constitution. The claims made in the lawsuit remain contested allegations and do not represent a final judicial finding of unlawful conduct by the police department.
