We're talking about an oral swab, the unconstitutionality of which is doubtful.
Sure it would help prevent and solve crimes. So would random (and not-so-random) searches of private homes without the need of search warrants.
But we aren't talking about anything random, we're talking about prisoners and arrestees. You know, they type of people we collect evidence on.
Can I assume you believe cops should be allowed free reign over private residences in the interest of community safety?
(Here's where you say "no".)
Then why should they have free reign over my body?
They don't, and wouldn't; your analysis is tortured.
Your risk of being swabbed would be no greater than your risk of being arrested. Arrestees are detained, are they not? They don't have freedom of movement over their bodies. They are fingerprinted. They may be handcuffed. Now, horrors, they'd be orally swabbed.
Your fears are overwrought in this instance.
1/3 of arrestees are found not guilty or never prosecuted.
SF Chronicle: Proposition 69 could threaten privacy of DNA:
The numbers are significant. In his advance release of Crime in California 2003, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer reported in July that there were just over half a million felony arrests -- not convictions -- in the state. Under Proposition 69, all 507,081 would be required to relinquish their genetic material -- even though statistics show that approximately one third of those arrested would have the charges dismissed or be found not guilty in a court of law.Under Proposition 69, approximately 170,000 INNOCENT people would submit their DNA to the state.
Yeah, I do know. They're the type of people we need to get search warrants for before we can collect certain types of evidence. This should be one of those types of evidence. I'm not against collecting DNA. I'm against collecting DNA without a warrant. An arrest for disturbing the peace simply isn't compelling enough.
Arrestees are detained, are they not? They don't have freedom of movement over their bodies. They are fingerprinted. They may be handcuffed.
The state always has the responsibility to weigh the rights of the individual against the rights of society. These are good examples of cases in which the rights of the individual are (and should be) relinquished in favor of society.
But this type of reasoning demonstrates precisely why we have the phrase "slippery slope". The simple fact that the state does take away some individual rights is not enough to justify allowing the state to take away more individual rights.
The potential for abuse is too great. The state must be required to prove probable cause first.