>>>Your DNA is now the equilivent of your fingerprint and can be taken without warrant or conviction.
>>>http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2013/06/03/supreme-court-says-dna-like-fingerprints-may-be-taken-after-arrest/
>>>
>>>Here's the Opinion:
>>>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf
>>>
>>>The 4th means a little less today than yesterday.
>>>
>>>chip...chip...chip...
>>
>>"....taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."
>>
>>Do you consider fingerprinting to be legitmate?
>
>>If so, what is the distinction between taking DNA and fingerprinting?
>
>With a warrant that specifically names fingerprint evidence to be seized or with a conviction, then yes fingerprinting is legitimate. Otherwise no.
>
>Now, if we want to talk reliability of fingerprint analysis, I believe that it is quite lacking and DNA is much more reliable.

Can they retain the DNA record if there is no conviction ?

They do in the UK