The Second Circuit has answered the age old question, is it constitutional to collect DNA samples from non-violent probationers?  No, the answer is not dependent on which orifice is used for collection.  The answer, as quoted by Second Circuit Sentencing Blog, from United States v. Amerson , is

Taking and storing samples of DNA under the restrictions of the DNA Act fulfills many important governmental interests, only some of which are limited to the criminal history of the subjects of the DNA testing.  The invasion of privacy, both immediate, and long term, from DNA testing of convicted felons — even those convicted of non-violent crimes and sentenced only to probation — is, given the safeguards of the 2004 DNA Act, relatively small.  Accordingly we conclude that the 2004 DNA Act, as applied to appellants, does not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure and hence does not violate the Fourth Amendment. 

Fulfills many important governmental interests?  I gather this means that the court is weighing the “many governmental interests,” so important that they need not be named, against that petty little individual freedom called privacy.  Privacy, shmivacy.  What’s freedom when compared with many important governmental interests?  It’s not like it’s just important governmental interests.  It’s MANY important governmental interests. 

Seriously, DNA keeps rearing its ocassionally unattractive head as being the solution to society’s ills.  As noted in a previous post, it’s both a blessing and a curse, but notably it’s the silver bullet to government ID, both now and going forward.  So the next question is why?  Why does the government want to collect a teeny weeny bit of each of us, starting with the convicted and ending with the Pope?  Because it will impart secret knowledge that we cannot later avoid or ignore.  It will tell us who dunnit if we get enough uvit.

So the more erudite reader is now asking, “then why are you wasting our time writing this?”  Because I, and perhaps I alone, fear DNA.  The moment the letters are uttered, all thought stops abruptly and absolutism absolves us from any further responsibility.  If the DNA says Joe Smith killed her, then bygummit, Joe Smith killed her.  Let’s all go have a beer! 

Why does this bother me?  Because the foregoing sentencing was neither sarcasm nor hyperbole.  People love a magic bullet.  Fingerprints with 5 points was once the answer to all ID.  Until it was shown to be failure.  Today it’s DNA, though few understand or appreciate its potential flaws via collection, storage, comingling, degradation, and just plain crappy lab work.  Many lawyers and experts have harped for years over the flaws and failures of eyewitness identifications.  DNA is just the new kid on the block.  Everybody loves the new kid.  Even the Second Circuit.