The five justices in the majority ruled that DNA sampling, after an arrest â€œfor a serious offenseâ€ and when officers â€œbring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody,â€ does not violate the Fourth Amendmentâ€™s prohibition of unreasonable searches. Under those specifications, the court said, â€œtaking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arresteeâ€™s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.â€ Scaliaâ€™s siding with the liberals reflects his growing concern over the past five years about privacy, said Tom Goldstein, the publisher of SCOTUSblog, who teaches at Harvard Law School and is a Supreme Court analyst for NBC News. â€œWeâ€™ve seen several decisions where he has joined more liberal justices to find greater privacy rights,â€ he said in an interview. â€œItâ€™s not a big surprise in recent years, but it is a surprise in the sense of his general conservatism.â€ ... At an oral argument in February, Justice Samuel Alito called the question perhaps the most important criminal procedure case the court had taken up in decades. Twenty-eight states and the federal government take DNA swabs from people under arrest before they can be tried.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640regexmanÂ via Flickr