the right of people to present their views of the government agencies which increasingly permeate our lives in this case dealing with the n e a which is provide some of the most intimate information possible about a person dad noticed and commented periods that rule designated by the attorney general that is classic delegation of authority and i too believe congress and dissipated that the a g would take advantage of the woman making process to determine which offenses beyond the violen offenses that were mandated originally are appropriate for inclusion in this program now the government misconstrues the issue to some extent by saying that it is an interpretive rule and directs the course of ten the definition of family that portion of the conflict is simply not there because the age even under the new statute in two thousand and four amendments could have come back and said we are simply not expanding the definition of this point we are actually starting this question to say only crimes of violence continue to qualify because we don't see the need to in ninety seven ninety percent of the cases where there is d n a evidence of the rape cases and on the stand so i think what congress was contemplating that there would be a determination of where this was appropriate and useful how the resources would be allocated and also weighing of the very considerable then i have the standard correctly in mind because there are different words used in different cases one i pulled out was whether there is a legitimate government interest is that the standard you are at the m argument out there that is what law enforcement is every day i mean everything that law enforcement does is try to solve crimes so there's nothing particular compelling about that we have an effective crime fighting measure as many other things are but the fact it's effective doesn't make it by any means that justice is like a fingerprint in terms of intrusion it's a different kind of intrusion but when you get to take fingerprints legitimately because what the government could do i think if they were just taking the blood just taking blood it would be like were doing was taking a second level of intrusion in terms of analyzing the blood sample that trenched on public possibly the most sensitive privacy information that any individual has it reveals medical information genetic information it's now being expanded by the government to genetic surveillance of family members that cited in my brief they're using close matches that don't don't match up with an offender to now use them as a basis for requesting probable cause to  and medical information we thought well that may well be your honor but my point is simply that the efforts here was made early on as this program was set up to attempt to find that area where you could identify a person deal with the identity of the person without necessarily getting into all of the medical privacy issues that may later used for those other purposes your honor if you the question is whether science might move in that direction certainly that's a possibility the law i understand this correctly and again i'm by no means an expert in d n a analysis but that the testing provides better analysis as opposed to taking it from saliva certainly from still alive it has been substantial intrusion into our we've found by that well i think you are with respect to blood but i do think we're also you're also pounded by kinkaid with respect to the ultimate issue with due respect to my opposing counsel i think there really is not much of a difference between mr kristol and the other defendants and the only difference here between kinkaid and this case is that was given an opportunity to challenge that and that just of course why we are here so i don't think we have the you know just the issue in that regard what is the government's interestin that looks only at those people who were further prosecuted now there are a number of times when an individual may violate the law they may in fact t of the possible outcomes which is what the sentencing commission did the figures are are even higher and this study is a study that was just criminal history and if you look at mr crystal's criminal history mr gr distinctions between males and females that are named so i you know i guess we can talk about these figures any way we want but i do think that there is still connection between believe so your honor actually because i think there is a desire for deterrence whether or not you're category rising something as a violent felony i think is the connection is more easily seen between a and the thought that if if this person is a violent felon and let's say a sex offender is probably the easiest example sex offender who commits a crime if we have his d n a maybe know people try to put it here for calgary well i certainly would not suggest that it doesn't have a crime fighting function that would be ron it certainly has been used number of people who might be covered in actually the irony here is i suppose mr kincaid case will be a rather small number of people who are affected because there are only a limited number of people longer than the maximum term under the statute because of the way the statutes are written there is that possibility if i understand the processing of the individuals been taken there and it wouldn't be taken for the first time since he was released released there's no further questions thank you thank you your honor and thank you for allowing me to go  future of law enforcement purpose and the government had the opportunity to below at the hearings to demonstrate some correlation between deterrence and this type of the center between deterrence and the type of thrives that might be solved and they