The state is empowered to collect evidence, including unique identifiers like fingerprints. They can also legally use fingerprints to link you to other crimes.The State's job is to prove guilt, not innocence. Proving innocence is your job if you're arrested.
True, but not relevant. If you leave fingerprints on a murder weapon, you are not incriminating yourself when the police take your fingerprints."Anything you say and do can be used against you." There is no law requiring police to work for your benefit.
Apparently, not anymore. And again, in most cases the police have many legal methods to obtain your DNA.Lawyers should be able to fight against the obtaining of DNA just like anything else. It's part of the defense process.
Not if it gets thrown in the trash. Anything you abandon becomes precisely that -- abandoned. As a court held in 2007: "No recognized privacy interest exists in voluntarily discarded saliva."If you want a suspect's DNA, get a subpoena or warrant. Their DNA is their personal property.
I'm not seeing this as "unreasonable search or seizure." If anything, it's all but routine now.Yes it does... it protects people's 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure of their personal property.
In fact, I'm seeing benefits to it. If the DNA doesn't match, the suspect is much more likely to be freed or cleared, in a much faster time frame, than under other circumstances -- such as being brow-beaten by a bunch of cops during an interrogation, and coughing up a false confession, only to have it overturned after 10 years in jail and multiple court proceedings.
It's not that easy, which is why it doesn't happen that often. E.g. a whopping 0.15% of Americans were arrested for violent crimes in 2009.It's easy to accuse anyone of a felony in this day and age. There are so many laws on the books.