Supreme Court upholds DNA swabbing of people under arrest

[ASTalumna06]

Thoughts? Opinions? Is this similar to fingerprinting, or is it a violation of the 4th Amendment and an invasion of privacy?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...er-arrest?lite

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.

The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three of the court’s more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in dissenting.

The five justices in the majority ruled that DNA sampling, after an arrest “for a serious offense” and when officers “bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody,” does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches.

[Kevin]

When Scalia joins the three liberal Justices, you should pay attention.

Having not read either the dissent or opinion, I just can't imagine we have a very meaningful 9th Amendment right to privacy or 4th Amendment right to suspicionless search and seizure or even a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination if it is the case that suspicionless DNA searches can be made.

As a lawyer who does criminal defense, this'll be good for business, but just damn.