http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003674052_dna20m.html
DNA collection from felons upheld by state high court
The state Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the practice of taking DNA samples from convicted felons for the purposes of identification, saying it's no different from fingerprinting them.
The justices’ 7-2 ruling upheld a Court of Appeals decision and existing state law that allows DNA typing of criminals to help in prosecution and identification.
The law prohibits the use of DNA samples for research or other purposes.
Six prisoners — whose cases ranging from second-degree murder and child rape to burglary and cocaine possession were consolidated into one — had argued that compulsory collection of DNA amounted to unreasonable search. Further, they said it constituted an invasion of their privacy, and as such, required justification, such as a search warrant.
But the justices said the statute violates neither state nor federal constitutional protections against invasion of privacy and unreasonable searches, pointing out that convicted felons have diminished right to privacy.
The Washington court did not use "probable cause" as the legal theory for allowing it. It is a "reasonableness" test along with a "balancing" theory for the 4th amendment. Probable cause has nothing to do with it. Diminished privacy expectations of prisoners and parolees do. Probable cause deals with warrants.
"and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause"
They do not get a warrant before taking DNA samples of convicts, and now even people merely arrested, so nobody has to submit an affidavit requesting a warrant listing the probable cause for its issuance to a magistrate.
The expansion of taking DNA from people who are only arrested will eventually make it's way to the Supreme Court where I imagine they will have to find that that is not Constitutional, since people who have not been convicted do not have a diminished expectation of privacy.
So what? Abortion is legal but that doesn't make it right either.
DNA collection may be legal and have the support of the courts, but it doesn't make that right.