Professional Genealogists and the Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy (FIGG) Process.

      Should professional genealogists, by necessity, be included in the forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG) process? If there is any hope of ensuring that FIGG continues to be a trusted tool able to be used by law-enforcement for solving cold case homicides and sexual assaults, as well as the identification of unidentified-human-remains (UHR), then the answer needs to be a resounding ‘YES.’

     With Bryan Kohberger now having agreed to a plea deal after being charged with the killing of four University of Idaho students in 2022 in Moscow, Idaho, USA, thus saving him from the death penalty, it is this case, where he was identified as a suspect using FIGG, that now sees the use of FIGG as a law-enforcement investigative tool, on a crisis-of-confidence precipice.

     Following the murder of four University of Idaho students in 2022, and initially with no apparent suspect identified, DNA retrieved from the crime scene by crime scene examiners was uploaded to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) in the hope of matching a DNA profile already in the database. The resultant search in CODIS identified no matches to the DNA located at the crime scene.[1] As a result of there being no matches in CODIS, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) moved to the use of FIGG to possibly identify a suspect in the murder case. The DNA sample was uploaded to genetic genealogy databases and within a short time matches to other DNA profiles in the database were located and Kohberger was identified as a possible suspect for the murders.[2] This is in line with how FIGG is used to identify a lead, which law-enforcement officers can then follow up, by obtaining DNA from the suspect, usually surreptitiously, and then uploading that DNA sample to CODIS where an identification is confirmed by a 100% match to the crime scene DNA that had previously been uploaded to CODIS.[3] It is this match in CODIS that is accepted by the Courts as confirmation of identification.

     The issue that arises from this case, and which places the use of FIGG in a precarious situation for future use, is that the genetic genealogy database that was used to identify Kohberger as a suspect was the MyHeritage genetic genealogy database.[4] A search that was undertaken by the FBI without either the consent, nor the knowledge of, MyHeritage. This directly breaches the Terms of Service of the use of the MyHeritage database, which specifically states,

 “Any use of the DNA Services for law enforcement purposes, forensic examinations, criminal investigations, “cold case” investigations, identification of unknown deceased people, location of relatives of deceased people using cadaver DNA, and/or all similar purposes, is strictly prohibited, unless a court order is obtained.”[5]

     The ‘Terms and Conditions’ of MyHeritage also indicate that it is their policy to resist law enforcement inquiries, which it states is done to protect the privacy of their customers.[6]

     This is not the first time that the MyHeritage genetic genealogy database has been used to identify a potential suspect in a cold-case homicide without their knowledge. In 2018 the MyHeritage database was used to identify Joseph James DeAngelo as a suspect in the ‘Golden State Killer’ case, and it was this case that led to MyHeritage updating its ‘Terms and Conditions’ to specifically prohibit the use of its database by law-enforcement.[7] At the time that DeAngelo was identified using FIGG, there were no guidelines, or specific ‘Terms and Conditions,’ that prohibited the use of genetic genealogy databases as a suspect-identification tool. However, since then, and with the public debate that has ensued after the identification of the ’Golden State Killer’ using genetic genealogy databases, law-enforcement are now well and truly aware of their obligations and responsibilities when it comes to FIGG and which genetic genealogy databases can and cannot be used as part of the FIGG process. The only genetic genealogy databases that permit the use of their databases for FIGG is Family Tree DNA, GedMatch Pro, and DNA Justice. All other genetic genealogy databases, including Ancestry, prohibit their databases being used by law-enforcement for FIGG.

     Leah Larkin in a post on her website, The DNA Geek, on 29 May 2025, reported that it appeared that in response to the breach of their ‘Terms and Conditions’ in the Khoberger case, MyHeritage had taken steps to ensure that the practice that was used by the FBI in this case, was not repeated, and as such had ceased all external DNA uploads to their database.[8] Whether this is or is not the case, the unfortunate aspect of this is that it places MyHeritage in a very difficult situation. On the one hand they need to actively take some form of action to ensure that law-enforcement, in the future, cannot access their DNA database for the purpose of FIGG, while also ensuring that any action taken is sufficient to satisfy its customers that their data will not be used by law-enforcement in beach of the companies ‘Term and Conditions,’ while also not restricting any access that customers previously had while utilizing the services at MyHeritage. If MyHeritage choose to prevent law-enforcement from breaching their terms and conditions in the future by ceasing all external DNA uploads, it should be noted that this would also prevent the lay-person, the family historian with an interest in genetic genealogy, and the professional genetic genealogist, from using the database for legitimate and proper purposes. The position in which law-enforcement has placed MyHeritage is disgraceful, and a situation that need not have arisen had guidelines for the use of FIGG been followed. This may also explain why Ancestry have placed some of their features, previously available to customers for free, behind a paywall.[9]

     It needs to be remembered, as law-enforcement moves away from using professional genealogists in the FIGG process, to wanting the whole process to be ‘in-house,’ that law-enforcement investigators are not professional genealogists. They are criminal investigators that are tasked with investigating criminal offences. They are not bound by the same Codes of Ethics and Professional Practices that professional genealogists are bound by, and while the Department of Justice (DoJ) have guidelines on how, and in what circumstances, FIGG should be conducted by law-enforcement officers, these are only guidelines and have no binding effect on criminal investigators. Law enforcement fails to understand that each time they pat themselves on the back for being able to ‘back-door’ a genetic genealogy company to achieve a breakthrough in a suspect identification using a genetic genealogy company’s database in contravention of their ‘Terms and Conditions,’ it erodes the public trust in both law-enforcement and the FIGG process itself, and risks the practice of FIGG being lost to any future solving of cold-cases. The repercussions through action taken by the genetic genealogy companies to stop law-enforcement breaching their terms of service has an unfair reaction on those wishing to use the databases for their intended purpose.

     The Association of Professional Genealogists (APG) not only have a Code of Ethics and Professional Practices, but also have a provision for investigating one of its members for having breached that code.[10] Where a complaint has been upheld against one of its members, the APG may initiate disciplinary action against the member, or make recommendations on how the situation can be rectified.[11] Of critical importance, and in light of the Kohberger case, is that one of the requirements that professional genealogists, who are members of the APG, are required to abide by, is requirement 7 in the APG Code of Ethics and Professional Practices, which states,

“I agree to: …

 7. Comply with terms of service, privacy policies, laws and regulations, and applicable rules and guidelines, including those concerning copyright, privacy, data protection, and business practices, and refrain from encouraging others to violate them.”[12]  

     It is only by using a professional genealogist, which is a highly specialised field of work, that is also a member of the APG, in the genetic genealogy component of the FIGG process, that trust and confidence can be restored in the FIGG process itself by both the public and the genetic genealogy companies, such as MyHeritage and Ancestry. An APG member is required to abide by the APG Code of Ethics and Professional Practices to ensure that Terms and Conditions of genetic genealogy companies are respected and complied with, or else they could be removed as an APG member. The use of an APG professional genealogist in the FIGG process would restore trust in the FIGG process itself by the genetic genealogy companies, who could be confident that their Terms and Conditions would be complied with, and that no DNA uploads would occur against their Terms and Conditions, and perhaps in the future, they may ease any restrictions they may put in place in the present to ensure that law-enforcement are not able to use their databases in the future. The APG member would have a vested interest in complying with the Code of Ethics and Professional Practices lest being removed from the APG Register and no longer able to work in the field of professional genealogy, and by extension the field of FIGG.

     So, to the question of whether professional genealogists need to be a part of the FIGG process, the answer is ABSOLUTELY. If the FIGG process is to gain back ground that has been eroded by the questionable conduct of law-enforcement, while not illegal, certainly un-ethical, then serious consideration needs to be given to making it mandatory that it is a professional genealogist, and APG member, not a law-enforcement criminal investigator, that is involved in the genealogy component of the FIGG process, and not leaving law-enforcement to trample all over the field of genealogy that has taken professional genealogical practitioners, and mum-and-dad family historians, years to make, not only a professional arena of work, but also an enjoyable pastime.      

---

[1]     Michael Ruiz, ‘Bryan Kohberger case: Idaho judge unseals transcript of closed-door IGG hearing’, Fox News Channel, https://www.foxnews.com/us/bryan-kohberger-case-idaho-judge-unseals-transcript-closed-door-igg-hearing, accessed 1 July 2025.

[2]     Ibid.

[3]     National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, Law Enforcement Use of Probabilistic Genotyping, Forensic DNA Phenotyping, and Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy Technologies, Washington, National Academies Press, 2024, pp. 25-26.

[4]     Ruiz, ‘Bryan Kohberger case: Idaho judge unseals transcript of closed-door IGG hearing’.

[5]     MyHeritage, ‘MyHeritage Terms and Conditions’, MyHeritage, https://www.myheritage.com/terms-and-conditions, updated 18 February 2025, accessed 1 July 2025.

[6]     Ibid.

[7]     Barbara Rae-Venter, I Know Who You Are: How an Amateur DNA Sleuth Unmasked the Golden State Killer and Changed Crime Fighting Forever, New York, Ballantine Books, 2023, pp. 111-116.

[8]     Leah Larkin, ‘The End of an Era: Uploads at MyHeritage’, The DNA Geek, https://thednageek.com/the-end-of-an-era-uploads-at-myheritage/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwKl2MZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHj4GYppJui3wtEDlhy_Sw0tUFCmhdHEK1fU-3hT_FwPWrAM5s_AJumc7KVbw_aem_H_sE-mtzyQ_TsdNNK79vGA, accessed I July 2025.

[9]     Roberta Estes, ‘Ancestry Updates Ethnicity, Introduces New Features and Pushes Some Behind Paywall,’ DNAeXplained – Genetic Genealogy, https://dna-explained.com/2023/09/27/ancestry-updates-ethnicity-introduces-new-features-pushes-some-behind-paywall/#:~:text=Ancestry%20has%20placed%20some%20previously%20free%20features%20behind,full%20subscription%20and%20only%20ordered%20a%20DNA%20test, accessed 1 July 2025.

[10]   Association of Professional Genealogists, ‘APG Code of Ethics and Professional Practices,’ Association of Professional Genealogists, https://www.apgen.org/code_of_ethics.php, accessed 1 July 2025.

[11]   Association of Professional Genealogists, ‘Filing a Complaint,’ Association of Professional Genealogists, https://www.apgen.org/filing_a_complaint.php#How%20The%20Complaint%20Process%20Works, accessed 1 July 2025.

[12]   Association of Professional Genealogists, ‘APG Code of Ethics and Professional Practices.’