I would be highly skeptical of any claim that any access control is so interwoven with the DNA matching algorithm that it is not a trivial problem to separate them. Furthermore, if the OCME fears that there are passwords in plaintext, and given that it presumably knows what the administrator's password is, it shouldn't be hard to find them. Furthermore, this presumably is not (or anyway should not be) a publicly-accessible program.

The second argument would be using 'security' to disguise a proprietary-software claim, and if it is what the quoted sentence actually means, the OCME should say so specifically, instead of making vague claims about security. I don't think there is any valid reason for the OCME to have proprietary rights over software of this nature: it is not, or should not be, in the business of selling software or software services, and such concerns should definitely not trump the need for such software to be thoroughly audited.

If the claim that it is proprietary software comes from a vendor, that should similarly be stated directly.

If either of these claims are the basis of the quoted sentence, and the judge accepts them, then it would provide a de facto immunization of all software against public scrutiny. Does this matter? I think so, as anyone convicted through the use of poorly-verified software has, in effect, been convicted by heresay according to rules that are not known by anyone, and with no way to challenge his accusers.