been answered by both this court and more important by the supreme court in this in versus wisconsin the court held very clearly that parolees and i use the term for all these to cover anyone on supervision parol sampling it's made possible by advancements in scientific technology but the supreme court is addressed that issue to you in terms of the fourth amendment entire report said that just because we can now do something with and with the breathalyzer and the court said that a breathalyzer intrusion would be a little bit different but would still be serious enough to implicate for economic principle though it would be different more it would be this it's still be a point doesn't make then chemical analysis of the blood to determine whether there were drugs or alcohol in the person's system was yet a further intrusion into the person's privacy and so even if we decided to take in some other way the guys released and so you can choose to stay in prison and therefore not have to give up your blood in your body and then a supervised release is an additional punishment and there's actually no way for parole these are prisoners to logical purpose in having a system that would be turfed future crime or that would give a greater chance of apprehension if there's a future crime there is not a  there a special need for the government to have a system to deter future crime from the most likely it was sort of this well it's not it's not general law enforcement in me have they ever said that federal law enforcement applies to future crimes i haven't seen any supreme court case where they were talking about that i think cases where they referred to general law enforcement can't address there is there such a case well i'm not sure the supreme court has ever use that terminology but it's i just pointed out in many of the special needs cases weren't they weren't doing what they were i need for this law is regular law enforcement but are they talking about law enforcement if there's a future crime and isn't that a critical distinction between requir solve past crimes versus requiring it so you have a mechanism to deter future crimes or solve them if they occur while someone is within the penal logical system these people are within the penal a special need why can't it be before they do the crime specific to tourists is not law enforcement after the crime it's an attempt like the parole conditions or conditions of release to stop them from doing a crime again i think there are a number of reasons i'd like to start out with what i consider to be the most important reason which is that even if it were a special need and a related to the purpose of supervision and group in the court drew a distinction between something related to for vision than by a parole or probation officer and something related to the solving of criminal investigations done by an good morning if he's the court jonathan marcus on behalf of the united states and the collection of d n a from convicted offenders in the criminal justice system is constitutional under the fourth amendment nine years ago in rise versus oregon that the state of california the numbers and we're talking about a large number of individuals as the f b i especially for the for the federal government there are over six hundred collection sites nationwide between all the probation offices where samples are collected and all the bureau of prisons sites and so the redraw rate becomes a really important factor for the federal government and because of that so many different sites and because of the high redraw rate with the buckle swab they have they have decided that that's not feasible option at this time although they they you know if the technology comes along so that the clean when they're at the collection site they can determine at the collection site that they're collecting a sufficient amount of d n a so it can be analyzed properly the decision could change but short response that it makes more easier i mean if they had to because of the high resale rate you might have people that would actually leave the system before they get their sample could be recollected and it's also an inconvenience to the offender as well having to come back for a second a second draw so the bottom amendments which one of the f b i to lay out what it basically what its plan was and connection with collecting samples from convicted offenders and that's not on the record i think that i can i can supplement the record with that if the court would  different contexts that blood draws are minimally interest of both in the criminal law enforcement context and also in special needs cases such as skinner where the court said that blood draws do not infringe significant privacy interests the courts repeatedly said that it's a commonplace and routine procedure that millions of americans are subjected to on a daily basis and so for that reason stent that that's that's the first reason and the second reason is to consider what's the group of people who are having the blood draw the group of people here are basically is that is the bludger out which is that which is occurring while the person is on probation  fingerprints where the justification the administrative justification for taking them when someone's books that doesn't that no court has had to tell you then have to basically give give the fingerprints not they can they're put into a national database and used for future criminal law enforcement purposes i identification profile and probation or does not have a reason expectation of privacy in what you know what that blood draw reveals to markets design and or standards knox's argument made a few minutes ago she's more concerned about know our position first is we're not relying on the special needs doctrine we don't believe you have to get to the special needs question that's something that you have to reach in cases when you're dealing with ordinary citizens the supreme court made clear united states versus nice that when you're system are more likely to commit crimes than people who are not that that's the state's interest in law enforcement law enforcement practices can focus on probation there's no way they count on ordinary citizens don't really probably reasonable suspicion was enough this restriction that something that some people are on probation might just decide that i think that might think about the fact that they could more that they're not going to be able to conceal certain evidence that they might leave at a crime scene that the government's going to have then it might make some think twice about committing another crime i think it's or i had i'm not i don't think it's necessary to our position i mean obviously the most important purpose of the law is to combat recidivism and and to quickly identify an offender when he does commit another fence and thereby protect public safety by getting him off the street quickly and all and also it  this that you know it doesn't address that but it does benefit innocent people be it both of those bike identifying the correct offender innocent people won't be wrongfully investigated or suspected and it also again with sometimes you have someone who is d n a doesn't match a crime scene but that doesn't automatically mean they're going to exonerate them some might be a belief that they just didn't leave d n a at the crime scene if you get a hit to a convicted offender that often will be the conclusive proof and i was giving the example of the offender in virginia who was recently pardoned after there was a hit on the database you about this statute is it technically open to us to say if we want to if we think the law requires us to uphold the statute against this challenge could we say that we reserve the question whether individuals have a right to bring an action to get their d n a records expunged from a database when they're no longer on supervised release we reserve that question i'm not asking you what the government's position is on that question i have a feeling you know the government wouldn't want anything to have under the database that i have no i don't think you could i don't you see how it's separable i mean that the issue is at the time the intrusion is being made is it constitutional to make that intrusion for the purpose for the purpose of creating this d n a identification profile that's going to go into the computer database that's what's at issue here i don't think you can separate it out and i think that recidivism and the supreme court said you can treat people do differently probation when you they've committed a crime you can assume they present more of a risk of committing another crime and you can't make that assumption about people in the general public wherever they live or wherever they may come from you can't make those assumption fingerprint database that we have the d n a profile database is the same all it provides is reliable and dish of identification there is no doubt there is no significant real difference between a fingerprint database and a d n a database that that's that's congress has authorized god you can't guarantee us what an attorney general twenty years from now is going to do you may not be as liberal i mean like his her current two points first there are there are restrictions or clear restrictions in the are in the database they are there from prior crimes and that those are run against the convicted offender database so yes someone could be implicated for a crime that occurred before they were entered into the database but  tell the government more and more about the person including very private medical and genetic information about them and that it wasn't that long ago that all d n a were junk sites we didn't know what they meant already we know th