>>7589945Bit off-topic, but no. They can't simply do a DNA test. They need to have a suspect to compare it to, they can't just go DNA testing at random hoping for a match. This is why there's still unsolved murders and rapes with blood samples to test with despite the fact that DNA testing has been a thing for almost 4 decades now. You need a suspect. No judge will allow that evidence in if you have to violate the privacy and boy autonomy of hundreds of thousands if not millions of random people in a town or city to get it.
Now if you willingly gave your DNA for some reason and it remains in a database, that is fair game. So donating blood and those stupid DNA tests people did for fun for example, the law can just come in and go "Hey, we have this DNA profile, do you mind if we check against your database for possible matches?" if they say no, they can just come back with a warrant issued by the court and that'll be that. This is how police were using
Ancestry.com and all those other companies to catch rapists and murderers a few years ago, since some dumb teenage girl did a test, and now the police DNA profile matches with one of her uncles.
So, in summary, you could get away with being a mass rapist with the MC's powers and never get caught, so long as you make sure to never end up in a database of some sort.
