You have no basis in fact to make such a claim, and likely have no clue what constitutes evidence sufficient to issue an arrest warrant.
In order for me to be arrested there needs to be “probable cause” that I committed the crime in question. Unless it is a 100% match, DNA does not meet the probable cause criteria. Anything less than 100% completely exonerates me.
“Anything less than 100% completely exonerates me.”
Tell it to the jury.
You seem to believe that DNA testing is perfect.
It’s never 100%. The more cops rely on database dragnets, the more of a problem there is going to be.
Here’s a paragraph from the article I linked to that might shed some light. The article is dense but you can get the gist of it:
“Consider, for example, the hypothetical cases illustrated in Table
1 in which the prior odds that the suspect is the source of an evidentiary
sample are 1:1000 and the random match probability is
one in one billion (109). If the probability of a false positive is
zero, then the posterior odds are a million to one in favor of the suspect
being the source, which certainly seems high enough to justify
confidence in that conclusion. In other words, the DNA evidence
has more than enough probative value to make up for the low prior
probability. However, if the false positive probability is even 1 in
10,000, the posterior odds in favor of the suspect being the source
are reduced drastically to only 10:1. It is very important for those
evaluating DNA evidence to understand that a false positive probability
on the order of 1 in 10,000, which may seem low enough to
be “safe,” may nevertheless undermine the value of a one-in-a-billion
DNA match sufficiently that, when combined with a low prior
probability, there is still room for doubt about whether the suspect
is the source of the matching sample.”
Sweet dreams.