I would like to give a complete answer to what Justice Alito and Justice Kagan both were asking, I think. To summarize that, if I look in terms of intrusion, I am not talking legally; I am talking practically. It doesn't seem to me -- I can argue that it is certainly a much lesser intrusion than
fingerprints. You have to stand there, have the thing rolled; stick out your tongue. I mean, it's hard to say it's more for me. I'm not saying for others.Accuracy, it's much more accurate, and that
doesn't just help the defendant. There is a whole brief here filed by the victims that have case after case where people spent 5 years in prison wrongly and where this system and the CODIS helped victims avoid being arrested and sent to jail when they were innocent. So it works both ways. So one, it's no more intrusive. Two, it is much more accurate. And three and four and five, how it's different and worse in practice, is what I would ask you to summarize.
For the whole argument: http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...anscripts/12-207.pdf

Same thing applies to blood sample for DWI, especially after the years of hearing how inaccurate breath samples are and how they can't be re-tested.

This is probably one of those cases that will turn on the briefs rather than the arguments. To my mind, the defendant's numbers on the 13 CODIS loci are just one more piece of information we can collect from an arrestee that is relevant to who he is. Others include: photographs of the face, photos of their tattoos, fingerprints, measurements, name, DOB, etc. All these things are information that can be used to solve other crimes, but all relate to his ultimate identity as the offender in the case of arrest. The defendant in this case is making an end run around the constantly growing record-keeping surrounding arrestees. Detailed identity information about arrestees has been collected for decades, perhaps centuries--has that been unreasonable all this time? Moreover, fingerprints can be altered or burned off, bone measurements changed, faces altered by scarring and plastic surgery, names and DOBs faked or spoofed. DNA can be spoofed, too. It is just another tool. I hope the briefs and arguments are clear on that.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JohnR,

The arguments are highlighting one of my frustrations with CODIS. You can't search known profiles against unsolved cases. Instead, you can only search unknown profiles against the database. So, you may have an evidentiary sample for say, Serial Killer X, but you can't run him against all the unknown cases. If you get a conviction, and he goes in the database, then maybe you get the hits later. Something is wrong with that. We need greater access to CODIS for investigating known suspects.

I can search Serial Killer X's name against TCIC/NCIC, he gets flagged in AFIS if he is printed, I can put out information posters with his photo. Why not search his known DNA against unsolved cases? How is that unfair?