Because it's significantly more effective than fingerprints.
It also tells the government everything about your biological makeup. Your strengths, your weaknesses, some of your behaviors, what drugs work well on you, what ones could kill you, etc. It's not the same as fingerprints. It contains very private information.
Oh, and let's not forget that it's frequently used to clear people of charges. If DNA is collected at the time of arrest, it could result in exonerating innocent people much earlier in the process.
If people are innocent then let them volunteer their DNA willingly.
The State's job is to prove guilt, not innocence. Proving innocence is
your job if you're arrested. "Anything you say and do can be used
against you." There is no law requiring police to work for your benefit.
Lawyers should be able to fight against the obtaining of DNA just like anything else. It's part of the defense process. It errs on the side of the rights and liberties of the individual.
If you're arrested for a serious felony, yes. That is what has changed.
If you want a suspect's DNA, get a subpoena or warrant. Their DNA is their personal property.
Requiring a warrant before collecting DNA doesn't have any effect on this at all.
Yes it does... it protects people's 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure of their personal property.
It's easy to
accuse anyone of a felony in this day and age. There are so many laws on the books. The SCOTUS ruling means that all the police have to do is accuse you, and they can take your DNA. This is wrong.
If they want your DNA, then they can prove how the DNA would be of use to police, and have enough suspicion to establish probable cause to get the warrant.
And any defense attorney has the power to question the credibility of DNA evidence in court.
Due process does and always should begin before court.