I do not have a strong opinion on this question, but it does seem to me that taking a dna sample is very similar to taking finger prints. Both of them are means of identification as is a photograph. Finger prints are harder to change over time than one's appearance in a phtograph. And dna is harder still.

I'm unsure what the basis of the ruling imposed by the MD Court of Appeals. However, when DNA collections were being conducted, if the defendant was later to exonorated for the crime they were accused of committing, the DNA was destroyed. MD now a days is such a dangerous state, we need all the tools we can to help preserve public safety. If that means giving DNA, I'm ready to take my swab.

Your DNA is unique to you. It is a more reliable form of identification than fingerprints. It is well known that eye witness identification is unreliable and many cases where the defendant was convicted on the basis of eye witness identification have been proven not guilty by means of DNA tests. It seems to me that all parties should desire the use of such a positive means of identification if the truth is what is desired, The building up of a database of DNA samples would seem to be a good idea from any standpoint. The fingerprint database is an accepted fact, why not a DNA database?

Law enforcement statistics will tell you that 90% of crime is committed by 10% of people. DNA samples from defendants could go a long way to getting and keeping that 10% off the streets

The judges on Maryland's Court of Appeals are a strange bunch.

The article didn't say anything about the crime or what happened afterwards. In 2003 a 58 year old woman was alone in her house in Salsbury when a man broke in and raped her. DNA was collected and stored. The case remained unsolved until 2009 when a man was arrested for assaulting someone else. At that time he was fingerprinted, photographed, and his DNA taken by a simple mouth swab. That DNA was then run against DNA in the database and the defendant was quickly identified. The key evidence at trial was that DNA match.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the taking of DNA at the time of arrest was a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Should defendents get DNA tested?
YES

Does this practice constitute "unreasonable search & seizure"? (4th Am.)
NO ......(a mouth swab)

This will be overturned.......

Your headline is misleading. They are not "suspects". When someone is arrested they are defendants. So yes, defendants should have their DNA swabbed. Suspects? No.

To put the DNA issue in a different perspective, how would you answer the following questions:
Would you support or oppose a law requiring that all citizens submit samples of their DNA to the government?
Would you support or oppose a law requiring that all citizens be fingerprinted at birth?
Do you believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty, or do you believe a person is guilty until proven innocent?

Why is there a question about assisting law enforcement to get criminials off the streets?