[NCLaw441]

You said: I'm 100% with the ACLU on this.

I'll take the other side. I don't get how this violates any constitutionally protected interest. I would perhaps consider a restriction on the use of the DNA for any use other than identification/exclusion. I am not sure what privacy interest is then harmed by getting DNA samples, by a simple swab of the mouth. That is not really intrusive, and tells the government nothing personal about you, such as legal, but perhaps unpopular activities you undertake, which is, as I understand it, the real interest to be protected under constitutional analysis.

[weegee]

What about self-incrimination?

You cannot be "forced" to give a breath test to "prove" inebriation.

I'm against fingerprints being added to passports as well (although I have no problem with passports having retinal scans, there is no "trace" left behind).

If someone wants to blur his tracks at a crime scene (rape/murder) he could always drop some used cigarettes or hair clippings (from a barbershop dumpster) putting someone else's DNA into play.

How many people on death row confess to "being there" but deny being the "killer/rapist" because of other DNA at the scene?

How many cases have been made because of "cigarettes" found at the scene?

Maybe you were just an unfortunate litterbug.

Let them build a case and then prove someone was there rather than finding someone who may have been involved and forcing him to prove his innocence.

Legal defense can be costly.

Should Richard Jewell still be considered a suspicious character?