back with us, jeffrey toobin and trial attorney daron kavinoky. under arrest, you should be fingerprinted, photographed, what's the difference if you have your mouth swabbed? is there a difference? >> the short answer the court will say there's not a difference. dna is a valuable tool. it's not an invasive test, not like a blood test, it's faster than fingerprints. >> it's invasive. a cotton swab inside your mouth, that's invasive. >> not really. they ink up fingers and they put your hands on a piece of paper. i don't think there's any difference. the argument is based on the idea the dna tells you so much about someone that that's the invasion that it tills you about disease and all sorts of things that the police are not entitled to know. but i think the supreme court is going to say, look, the technology has changed, this is a useful test, it's not that invasive, and it's just like a fingerprint, let the cop dozen it. >> daron, is the issue here, this guy who i outlined, was a bad guy, and he doesn't garner a lot of sympathy. the fact that he w