>>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?

Considering matching fingerprints is an art and not a science, and then there is this which is terrifying:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-4069140.html