The state has a legitimate police power in correctly identifying people. Thus fingerprints are legal, although they were initially challenged. DNA will soon follow as it should.
Having served my country they have my fingerprints. I have no problem with them having my DNA also. And I see no reason those arrested shouldn’t have their DNA collected and stored.
Like others I have some minor concerns as to the abuse of a DNA database, but that’s another argument, and frankly I’ve not seen a compelling argument on potential abuses.
It is reasonable that the police need to identify a suspect that they arrest. Under what circumstances would they not be able to identify you with your fingerprints, but they would be able to do so with your DNA?
The need to identify you must be weighed against your constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches. It is a constitutional right, so it should only be infringed upon if it is necessary, not because the government wants to collect as much evidence as they can without a warrant. They need to justify why the suspect's identity is in doubt and why DNA might provide their identity when a fingerprint was unable to do so.
The police already have reasonable means by which they can identify suspects, they need to specifically justify why they need this additional method.
If this isn't merely an attempt to acquire new evidence, they should be able to provide DNA evidence related to the specific crime to which he is being charged.
If he is convicted, then it might be reasonable to then collect DNA and see if they can connect him with additional crimes.
“Having served my country they have my fingerprints. I have no problem with them having my DNA also. And I see no reason those arrested shouldn’t have their DNA collected and stored.”
Yeah well, me too but I have still have this problem with the ‘state’ treating me like a serf.