>>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...
>
>Different followup question.................
>
>Let's suppose that a fingerprint was taken at the rape scene and the police have a legitimate reason to believe that it belonged to the the person committing the rape.
>
>Rather than matching the DNA the police match the fingerprint. Would this be legitimate/constitutional?
>
>Would it be constitutional to use the fingerprints to determine if the person in custody has warrants in another jurisdiction? Would it be permissible to use DNA evidence for the same thing?

The constitutionality comes from the method authorities use to obtain the fingerprints. Those found at a crime scene are evidence. Perfectly acceptable.

As to the matching database I see no problem if they are made up of fingerprints which are given voluntarily or surrendered as part of the punnishment phase after a criminal conviction.

If a warrant is issued to obtain fingerprints in the course of an investigation for the purpose of matching to evidence found at a crime scene there is no issue. However, those fingerprints, whether they match or not, should not be submitted to the database without voluntary consent or as punishment post-conviction.

Consider:
1) Police can arrest anyone for "suspicion" of xxx
2) Now police can seize DNA of anyone arrested

Bingo - DNA database! I'll leave it to your imagination as to why/how that WILL be abused.