Justice Scalia and Supreme Court's Ruling on DNA

Well, that one threw me for a loop, Scalia, of all people, dissenting.

I really don't see it as much different than having the fingerprints taken of a suspect.

If the DNA sample is taken from inside the mouth, it would be considered to be invasive. Ffingerprints are not invasive as they are on the outside skin layer of the skin.

The case has sparked a robust dialogue surrounding a suspected criminal’s right to privacy. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Dissenters of the decision believe that without a warrant, DNA sampling breaches an individual’s rights to privacy.

On All In with Chris Hayes Monday, attorney Barry Scheck sided with Scalia’s emphasis on privacy rights for Americans. Scheck, founder of The Innocence Project, an organization that helps prisoners prove their innocence through DNA testing, explained after the show why he falls on the side of the Supreme Court. Considering Scheck’s life work in exonerating prisoners, what makes him disagree with this use of the practice? Check out the video to find out his answer.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/05/attorney-barry-scheck-on-taking-dna-from-suspected-criminals-2/

DNA testing has led to the exoneration of more than 300 people wrongly convicted of crimes. Yet the technology is far from fulfilling its promise of aiding law enforcement to identify criminals and letting the innocent go free. A Department of Justice study estimated that around 900,000 requests for biological screening, mostly DNA testing, were backlogged nationally at the end of 2009, the most recent year for which data is available. Meanwhile, large numbers of kits from routine arrests may be making the problem worse, argued Brandon Garrett, a professor at University of Virginia School of Law.

“As taking more DNA from arrestees has increased, the backlogs have increased at the expense of testing DNA from actual crime scenes,” he said.

Garrett also said that simply adding a DNA sample from everyone who is arrested might even make it harder for police to identify criminals, increasing the likelihood of false positives without adding any perpetrators to the system.

“A lot of innocent people will have their DNA in these databases,” he said. “That dilutes the databases and weakens their power.” He argued that since many criminals have prior convictions, taking samples only from convicts would be more efficient. The state’s constitutional authority to take samples from convicts is not disputed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/06/04/after-the-supreme-courts-dna-decision-what-is-the-future-of-criminal-justice/

I agree, not much different from finger prints. This one doesn't worry me very much.

Doesn't the 4th amendment apply in both cases, or are you picking and choosing when it applies.