We Don't Need No Steenkin Fourth amendment: Maryland v. King

[Pointedstick]

Mushy logic strikes again.

"Well, the plaintiff has rights, but also has responsibilities as a citizen... so we need to balance them because one person's right is another person's restriction... the plaintiff's right to X, Y, or Z be free from unreasonable searches and seizures must be weighed against society's need for order and other people's right to feel safe and secure... therefore I thought very hard about it and decided that the plaintiff's right to X, Y, or Z be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is outweighed by society's need for the plaintiff not to X, Y, or Z be free from unreasonable searches and seizures because then they would feel uneasy law enforcement and criminal justice initiatives would be irreparably harmed, and the wants of the many need for the government to have unlimited powers to achieve those ends outweigh the rights of the few. Case closed."

[Benko]

"Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the dissent that was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan"

Now isn't that an interesting grouping.

[WildAboutHarry]

I don't see DNA as fundamentally different (except for the technology involved) from fingerprints, photographs, etc.

Fingerprints are intrusive (remember what happened to Nathan Arizona's camel-hair jacket!).  Mug shots are intrusive.  But so long as traffic cops don't stick a swab in your mouth when pulling you over for speeding we should be OK.

Somewhere (probably The Simpsons) I heard it said that the only reason that the government keeps pennies in circulation is to obtain clandestine DNA samples.