[brief] A buccal or cheek swab for the purposes of obtaining a DNA sample constitutes a search under the State and federal constitutions.  *State v. O’Hagen*, 189 N.J. 140, 149 (2007).  Whether a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment “depends on [sic] all of the circumstances surrounding the search or seizure and the nature of the search or seizure itself. ”  *Ibid.* (quoting *Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n*, 489 U.S. 602, 619 (2007)).  “The ‘ultimate measure’ of a governmental search is ‘reasonableness,’ which is assessed through a comparison of law enforcement needs with the individual’s expectation of privacy and the depth of the intrusion. ”  *State v. Gathers*, 449 N.J. Super. 265, 270 (App. Div. 2017), *aff’d*, 234 N.J. 208 (2018) (quoting *Maryland v. King*, 569 U.S. 435, 447 (2013)).  In *Gathers*, the defendant was charged with weapons possession offenses, and the trial court granted the State’s request to compel a buccal swab in order to make a comparison to a firearm that was recovered.  449 N.J. Super. at 267-68.  The Appellate Division reversed, first holding the State’s hearsay certification by an assistant prosecutor who lacked personal knowledge of the case did not support a claim of probable cause for the search.  *Id.* at 274, 269.  However, it continued by holding that even if the court were to overlook the inadequacies of the State’s submission, it would nonetheless conclude the search is unreasonable, “chiefly because of the timing of the request” which came eight months after the alleged offense and five months after indictment.  *Id.* at 268-270.  In its analysis, the court noted the “reasonableness of a search would be judged differently if sought at the time of arrest rather than . . . long after defendant’s arrest. ”  *Id.* at 270.  Despite a buccal swab being a “very minor physical intrusion,” there is nonetheless an accompanying “indignity” that is a relevant concern in assessing reasonableness.  *Id.* at 271 (first quoting *O’Hagen*, 189 N.J. at 162, then quoting *King*, 569 U.S. at 464).  “The indignity of being forced to provide a buccal swab while defendant—presumed innocent—resides in the county jail awaiting trial is a legitimate concern that should be weighed against the alleged governmental interest when court approval for such a search is sought. ”  *Id.* at 271-272.  The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding the State’s certification did not establish probable cause to justify the order to compel.  *Gathers*, 234 N.J. at 224-225.  Having found the State lacked sufficient probable cause, the court did not reach the additional grounds on which the Appellate Division based its reversal.  However, the court did comment the “delay in administering the buccal swab affects the analysis relating to probable cause: although a buccal swab at the time of arrest or booking “does not increase the indignity already attendant to normal incidents of arrest,” we cannot presume the same for a swab nearly eight months after arrest, and five months after indictment. ”  *Id.* at 222 (internal citation omitted) (quoting *King*, 569 U.S. at 461).  Here, the extensive delay in seeking a buccal swab from defendants renders the request patently unreasonable.