I don't see any viable objection to being forced to give the swab....nor, do I see how this makes our country less free.
Originally Posted by timpage
It is right here:
[I]The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception;
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Even if you are a dirtbag rapist, in this country you don't have to be exposed as such for
suspicion of drinking and driving or petty larceny.
It is intended to keep the cops from arresting you on some bogus charge to get the information they need to confirm a suspicion. What the cops are supposed to do is get enough evidence to convince a judge to give them a warrant to get the info.
Surely this is a difficult decision, hence a 5-4 bipartsan result. There is logic on both sides but the prevailing wisdom that a free country will accept is that
it is better a million criminals go free than one innocent man be incarcerated.
I don't feel the exhoneration argument holds water here; if a new swab could prove someone innocent, it should already be possible to determine that by swabbing the falsely convicted.