DNA fingerprints: a legal incident

"Your DNA can be used against you in court"

jeston, Geektimes, based on Ars Technica materials:
David Kravets, Supreme Court gives tacit approval for government to take anybody’s DNA

The US Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal against the decision of a lower court in Maryland, the verdict of which was based on a DNA study of the defendant. The prisoner, who is serving a life sentence, claimed that the accusation was illegal, since he did not sign a work permit with his DNA.

A man named Glenn Raynor was convicted of rape by a Maryland court in 2009. The accusation was based on DNA samples of the defendant, which he categorically refused to provide to the police for research. Then, after questioning Raynor, the agents collected sweat samples from the chair on which he was sitting during the procedure and used them to confirm guilt. The coincidence turned out to be complete. Raynor, with the help of lawyers, appealed to the US Supreme Court, arguing that the evidence was obtained illegally because he did not consent to the collection of biomaterials.

The judges refused to consider the case. The motivation is simple: if DNA was obtained without direct removal of biomaterials, then this is the same way of identifying a person as fingerprints or facial features. The Fourth Amendment of the United States, which guarantees the indication of items to be seized in a search warrant, was not violated.

In connection with this case, law professor Byron Varnken asks the question: "If the mobile phone of a suspect in a crime turned out to be in the hands of the investigation, then the police cannot examine its contents without a special warrant. But then it turns out that a technical device has a greater level of privacy than a person whose DNA was obtained without his consent and without a court decision"?

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru11.03.2015