Federal Supreme Court, 24.08.2026, 7B_642/2025
Facts
The appellant, previously convicted in 2024 for a narcotics offense, was stopped by police several times in 2025 in Geneva, notably while in possession of cocaine and cash. Following an initial order on March 16, 2025, his DNA profile was established pursuant to Art. 255 para. 1bis of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrimPC) to help solve potential, as yet unknown, narcotics offenses. The Public Prosecutor's Office subsequently issued three new orders on May 5, May 28, and August 20, 2025, titled "establishment of DNA profile." The Criminal Appeals Chamber upheld these orders. The appellant appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting, among other things, their annulment and the deletion of his profile. The three cases were joined due to their identical subject matter and grounds for appeal (considerations 1, 2.3-2.7).
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court distinguishes between the collection of a DNA sample, the analysis required to establish a profile, and the administrative re-registration of an existing profile in CODIS under a new PCN number. When a complete profile already exists and is of sufficient quality, a new criminal proceeding may lead to its registration under a new PCN without requiring a new sample or analysis (considerations 3.2.1-3.2.3).
The establishment and retention of a DNA profile constitute an interference with the right to informational self-determination guaranteed by Art. 13 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution. and Art. 8 of the ECHR. Re-registration also constitutes an interference, as it extends the use of the profile and may prolong its retention period. Such a measure must therefore have a legal basis, serve a public interest, and respect the principle of proportionality.Art. 255 para. 1bis of the CrimPC allows for the establishment of a profile when there are concrete indications that the accused may have committed other, as yet unknown, crimes or offenses. Systematic establishment solely because a person is the subject of criminal proceedings remains unlawful (considerations 4.3.1-4.4).
Application to the Case
The contested orders did not result in any new sampling or analysis: the existing profile was merely re-registered and linked to the new criminal proceedings, thereby triggering new deletion deadlines. Such a procedure may be based on Art. 255 para. 1bis of the CrimPC, provided that its requirements are concretely examined for each new proceeding (considerations 3.3, 4.5.1).
These conditions were met. The appellant had a prior record for narcotics offenses and had been stopped several times in areas known for drug trafficking, notably while in possession of cocaine and significant amounts of cash. These circumstances constituted concrete indications that he might be involved in other narcotics offenses. Furthermore, the offenses potentially to be solved were of sufficient gravity, as cocaine trafficking harms public health and essential legal interests. The measures were appropriate and necessary to prevent the premature deletion of evidence that could help solve as yet unknown offenses (considerations 4.5.2-4.5.7).
Issue
The successive re-registration of an existing DNA profile is permissible when based on an individualized assessment of the conditions set out in Art. 255 para. 1bis of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code and when it respects the principle of proportionality. In this case, no violation of personal liberty, data protection, or the right to privacy was found. The appeals are dismissed to the extent that they are admissible; legal aid is granted to the appellant. (consid. 4.5.8-5)