Don't assume it works like human DNA databases where you're matching a suspect's profile to evidence - dog DNA matching is way less precise because there's huge genetic variation within breeds and you're basically just narrowing down possibilities rather than getting a definitive match. The real value would be more circumstantial: if a dog's hair or saliva is found at a crime scene, matching it to a registered dog could help place the owner there, or at least give investigators a lead worth following up. The tricky part is that it only works if the dog's owner has registered their DNA (which raises questions about who'd voluntarily do that and whether it'd be legally enforceable), and you'd still need other evidence to actually prove guilt. Is this about a specific case you read about, or more the general concept?