We want to like the ACLU, really we do, but sometimes they have to take difficult positions in order to secure legal precedents like privacy rights, as in the case they're arguing now to stop the state of California from doing their mandatory collection of DNA samples from all felony arrestees, even if they're later exonerated. Such DNA collection did, of course, lead to the capture of the Grim Sleeper which our pals down at LAist have been quite excited about. A judge at the 9th Circuit yesterday asked the ACLU how this process was different than collecting fingerprints, and they argue that a swab inside the mouth constitutes an illegal search and seizure.
Um, thoughts?
