The Supreme Court has held that following an arrest for a felony, the routine collection of DNA can be considered constitutional in the absence of a search warrant for DNA. Why did the Supreme Court determine that such a collection of DNA was reasonable in the absence of a warrant? Does this make such evidence admissible against the person from whom it was collected?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of The Supreme Court has held that following an arrest for a felony, the routine collection of DNA can be considered constitutional in the absence of a search warrant for DNA. Why did the Supreme Court determine that such a collection of DNA was reasonable in the absence of a warrant? Does this make such evidence admissible against the person from whom it was collected?

The Supreme Court Has Held That Following an Arrest for a Felony