To date, DNA profiling is of most use to the law in sexual assault cases, other types of assault in which the assailant leaves beyond some form of body sample, paternity testing, and in immigration cases related to family reunions. However, the author maintains that the claims of relevance for DNA profiling have been exaggerated, pointing out problems related to its limited application, cost and time, quantity of samples, fallibility, and limited police powers in compelling a suspect to provide a body tissue sample for analysis. Several civil liberties issues make the latter issue one of concern; these include self-incrimination, accountability of police, informed consent, and targeting of the suspect. Although Australian courts have not yet ruled decisively on the admissibility of evidence based on DNA fingerprinting, the standard set in the 1923 Frye v. United States decision is being absorbed into Australian law. This standard holds that, to be admissible, scientific evidence must be proferred by a qualified expert and that the techniques used to obtain it must be widely accepted within the scientific community. A 1989 case decided by the New York Supreme Court, The People v. Castro, raised additional issues related to DNA profiling. These include discrepancies between forensic report and laboratory findings, deficient laboratory records, the use of controls, and identification and matching of bands. The ruling also touched upon the impact of degradation of DNA samples, the impact of probe contamination, and the calculation of matching probabilities. 4 notes and 63 references