>>>>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

I do not know.