I think the argument (correct me if I am wrong) is that DNA actually contains encoded information, where a finger print is just a unique pattern.

But law enforcement is not using the encoded information, they are just taking a unique pattern from the information and using it for identification purposes.

I could for sure envision a situation where they use the encoded information. Let's say they find that the sample comes from a person who is predisposed to a heart condition and they already have a description putting him in the 40-50 age range. That's a pretty significant piece of information that can help narrow down a search or canvass, especially if there's any other meta data they can correlate to the crime.

Why would your example be unreasonable? Sounds like good police work.

Just that it is very unlikely that you could infer the clinical manifestation of a heart condition just from DNA alone...

No, I would not consider it unreasonable but a lot of people probably would. And I don't know enough about inferring future health conditions from DNA alone, but I meant it as an example for a future possibility. If anyone does know, exactly, what you can infer from DNA alone and how that would be extremely helpful.

The difference is that lifting fingerprints can only tie you to a crime scene. In this case the DNA evidence tied him to the actual crime.

What about the DNA tied him to the crime as opposed to the just the crime scene? The article doesn't really go into that.

If they're just comparing the DNA that was left behind at the police station to DNA they found at a crime scene, I don't see any issue.

This was a rape case. Leaving fingerprints or even DNA on a bloody knife can only confirm you picked up the knife, and therefore that you were present at the scene. In this case the DNA identified him as the perpetrator of the crime.

IMHO the EFF have chosen the wrong case to fight here.

I'm not sure there is any point in making a distinction, because while the DNA identifies him as the perpetrator, it also ties him to the crime scene.

Therefore, if we made a rule that evidence that ties you to a crime scene (such as fingerprints) can be collected without a warrant, but evidence that identifies you as the perpetrator needs a warrant, couldn't the police simply collect the DNA from the chair without a warrant, and only use the DNA from that sample to tie him the crime scene?

Then, once he's tied to the crime scene, that could be used to justify a warrant to collect a direct DNA sample directly from him, and then they could use that second sample to identify him as the perpetrator?

I agree that this makes the EFF look very bad. Persecuting rape is difficult enough as it is. I can't figure out any hypothetical example where this kind of identification testing could be abused without literally fabricating all sorts of additional evidence.

And if the rapist in this case was questioned as a subject, the police could have gotten a warrant for the DNA anyway.

You can't choose what cases will set precedence, and, once set, it is very difficult to "unset".

Lawyers can and do choose which cases will be set for precedent all the time. It's somewhat difficult to ensure that your case is the only one going after the said precedent at the right time, but just about any time a new law is passed that people object to, lawyers begin shopping for ideal candidates and then determining the best ways for them to break the law in the least damaging way, and in the best possible district to get the law deemed unconstitutional.

This typically happens with civil rights cases, and it's worth noting that there are certain legal groups that are better at it than others -- the Second Amendment Foundation is exceptional, and it's a large part of why their win record is so good.

Another difference between lifting fingerprints and lifting DNA is that the genetic markings can be studied to give further insight into the person - for example medical, removing more of their privacy, which without probable cause, is in breach of the 4th amendment.

A fingerprint however, if found in public and considered fair game tells you one thing - that you were there, or someone reasonably competent in lifting and transferring fingerprints has a copy of your fingerprint and is attempting to put you in the spotlight. It doesn't tell the discoverer of your print anything further about you.

>I don't see how this would be different from lifting fingerprints from a discarded cup.

Your fingerprints don't tell me anything about your mother, you medical history or future, or hers.

When someone takes your DNA, they search your entire family.

Testing DNA for identification purposes at best establishes identity and a small part of your family tree. Not even the latter so much, because your family would have to be in the system, too. And your family relationships should be something police is entitled to find out.