In the case of Maryland v. Alonzo Jay King, Jr., 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that collecting DNA samples from individuals arrested for serious crimes is a legitimate police booking procedure comparable to fingerprinting and photographing. The case began when Alonzo Jay King was arrested in 2009 on assault charges in Maryland. During his arrest, police took a DNA swab from him which matched evidence from an unsolved rape case six years earlier; he was subsequently convicted for this crime based on the DNA evidence. However, King challenged this conviction arguing that taking his DNA without warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. In its ruling (5-4), the court held that such collection of DNA under these circumstances does not violate constitutional protections because it serves a significant government interest - solving cold cases and identifying criminals.

In the dissenting opinion for Maryland v. Alonzo Jay King, Jr., Justice Antonin Scalia argued that allowing DNA swabs from arrestees without a warrant was an infringement on their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that the majority's decision to allow such practices under the guise of identifying suspects was misleading as it is not used primarily for identification but rather investigative purposes. Scalia also pointed out that this ruling could potentially open up opportunities for law enforcement to collect DNA samples from anyone they detain, even if only briefly or without formal charges - a scenario he deemed "a genetic panopticon." The justice emphasized his belief in maintaining constitutional protections over expanding police powers.