Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
As you know, I disagree with the DNA ruling, but I imagine it falls under what the SC considers "invasive." I guess they feel a cheek swab is not invasive, while a blood draw is.
|
i don't know that it was brought up. the majority only looked at dna collection as another tool to identify, but that's not what it was used for as scalia pointed out.
so, if it's really to obtain evidence, then it should fall under the same evidence aquirement rule as blood draw imo. whether a swab in the mouth, or a needle in the vein, it's invasive, isn't it?