>>>>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.
>
>But isn't this already true today with fingerprints? Police can arrest anyone for 'suspicion' of xyz - now they have their fingerprints in the whatever-it-is fingerprint database? Or does it not work that way?

You are required to give name, address, birthdate & ss# at arrest. If you are charged with a misdemeanor or felony you will be photographed & fingerprinted.
http://www.legal-aid.org/en/ineedhelp/ineedhelp/criminalproblem/faq/whatcaniexpectifiamarrested.aspx

While I also have an issue with warrantless fingerprinting, I accept that if it were not standard procedure it would simply end up being a "rubber-stamp" warrant.

The difference between DNA and fingerprints are night/day. Fingerprints are an indentification marker only. DNA is your entire genetic makeup. In a database, fingerprints are like jpegs of social security numbers. A name linked to an identifying marker.

>I still haven't decided if this whole thing is a good idea or not....I have rather mixed feelings about it for sure. I agree with what you pointed out - "it WILL be abused"...which is why I'm on the fence about it.

Today's headlines :
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2013/05/15/report-obama-campaign-co-chair-attacked-romney-leaked-irs-docs

Tomorrow's headlines :
DNA "leaked": Candidate X has a high cancer-risk. Can we trust X will be alive to serve out their term?
This ad sponsored by the opponents of Candidate X.