I intend to read the opinion carefully to determine the scope of its application, but in the meantime there have been a number of cases (too many IMO) in which DNA has resulted in the release of people who were wronglfully convicted, and in some instances had served 10, 15, even 25 years in prison for a crime it was proven by DNA they did not commit.
Personally, I do not favor the gathering of evidence without probabe cause for the commission of the crime that is sought to be proven by the evidence gathered. But our SC has historically allowed searches "incident to arrest" and upheld the conviction of those who were searched during an arrest by the evidence obtained in that search.
The "conflict" is going to be in the future, the "definition" of "arrest" as that is defined for purposes of activating constitutional rights on the basis of the "facts" showing the amount of limitations placed on the person allegedly being arrested. Many want to expand the "factual" definition of "arrest" so that LE is REQUIRED to provide Miranda warnings prior to questioning, but now LE is going to want to expand the definition to facilitate the gathering of evidence.