http://www.supremecourt.gov/...
Maryland v. King. In a case that legal nerds (such as myself) have been eagerly anticipating, the Court has upheld a Maryland law allowing law enforcement agencies to collect the DNA of suspects arrested in connection with certain violent crimes. As is typical in Fourth Amendment cases, the Court was not split along the usual ideological lines - the majority consisted of Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Breyer. Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.
While I'm more conservative than many on here when it comes to law enforcement, the reasoning in this case strikes me as strained. The Court upheld the DNA collection law by analogizing it to administrative procedures like fingerprinting and photographing suspects upon arrest. Basically, the government has a very strong interest in obtaining identifying information about the person they have in arrest.
...But that's not the purpose of the law. At oral argument, the Maryland AG began by arguing that the program had cleared a substantial number of cold cases. The DNA in this specific case wasn't tested for several weeks after King was arraigned. There was no question that the guy they had arrested was King. The DNA program doesn't exist so law enforcement can rapidly identify a suspect and custody and ensure that he is who they think he is - the purpose is clearing cold cases.
SCOTUS just totally ducked the issue of whether the DNA can be collected only for the purpose of clearing cold cases. It seems to me that the only answer to that question is "no." So...at the end of the day, I'm conflicted on this one. It's tough to get TOO upset that someone arrested for one violent crime ends up definitively linked to another. And the use of DNA evidence adds legitimacy to our justice system. On the other hand, it's hard not to be concerned about the intrusive use of developing technology. And as a legal nerd, the Court's reasoning strikes me as really shaky here.