The argument is that they aren't considering phenotype information when they are solving crimes. How would that information even be used? A lawyer would have a stronger argument arguing a predisposition to criminality on environmental factors: a broken home, being raised when leaded gas was used, etc, versus arguing in terms of genetic association. These studies are not very robust connecting behavior and genetics because environment is a huge factor that explains the observed variances in these phenotypes.

That being said, these data are being used for actually legally actionable things: first order pattern recognition using the same legal frameworks as fingerprints. Not second order "what do these patterns actually do in the body" or third order "what do these functions in the body do for the individual", each of which would probably take a PhD project to work out.