Supreme Court: DNA Samples Can Be Taken From Arrestees Without Warrant
What are people's thoughts on this? Do you consider it just another means of identification, like a fingerprint or photo? When and where do we stop taking DNA samples? Do we do it for only violent crimes? What about misdemeanor things like traffic violations? Or do we have DNA become a de facto standard for identification for everything, requiring it to enroll children in schools, open a bank account, etc.?
On top of this, what about the case that sparked this off? The law in the state where it originated allowed for a DNA sample to be taken for any arrest for a violent crime. The original arrest of the man involved was for a violent crime, during which the police took a DNA sample that was later used to link the man to an unsolved rape and robbery case. After all of that happened, the original arrest case was plead down to a lesser crime that would not have had a DNA sample taken. So should the DNA sample be thrown out?
Very interesting Constitutional arguments here.