>>>>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

IIRC, they've had to back off on the indefinite retention of the DNA sample if the person is not convicted? Didn't the European Court rule it unlawful - but it's still held for 6-12 years.