what the supreme court said your particular people, particularly when you have literally argued haskell v. harris to the supreme court in maryland versus king, you made those arguments. >> the supreme court never mentioned haskell. >> they never mention our cases unless they reverse it. >> they did mention other cases it upheld or struck down d.n.a. testing of arrestees. i don't think that article three courts secretly reach out to decide other cases and i don't think you can judge that based on -- >> i'm simply saying they heard your argument, the very ones you despite g to us today, your desire they would go in a different direction, justice kennedy's opinion which was just mentioned and we were going down those points and scalia's interpretation of that, it seems to me the distinction you are making on an applied basis can't possible hold water. this is like fingerprinting. your people don't get removed from the fingerprint base. they don't get removed from the d.n.a. base. >> i don't know that the scorte addressed the issue you are presenting here because in this case california does not ough

they heard arguments in haskell harris. this is just over an hour. >> good afternoon, the court of appeals for the ninth circuit is now in session. good afternoon. please be seated. we're here for the argument of haskell versus harris. judge gould is appearing by video. good afternoon judge gould, can you hear me? >> good afternoon. >> you are coming through loud and clear. are we coming through? >> great. i can hear you fine. >> okay, counsel ready? you may proceed. >> good afternoon. michaelerisher for the appealants.nd i'd ask to reserve five minutes for the rebuttal. >> you have the clock. you'll have what is left over. >> may it please the court, this case is fundamentally different from king because california's law applies fully to people who are never charged with an offense and those who are want of probable cause under mcclough lin and gerstein. interests that king identifies can justify taking d.n.a. from these individuals prosecuted being because all of king's interests relate to tracking and monitoring people as

up next, the oral argument in haskell v. harris, about california's mandatory d.n.a. ection from individuals arrested on suspicion of a felony. this is just over an hour. >> good afternoon. please be seated. we're here for the argument of haskell versus harris. judge gould is appearing by video. good afternoon judge gould, can you hear me? >> good afternoon. you are coming through loud and clear. are we coming through? >> great. i can hear you fine. >> okay, counsel ready? you may proceed. >> good afternoon. for the plaintiffs, i'd ask to reserve five minutes for the rebuttal. >> you have the clock. you'll have what is left over. >> may it please the court, this case is fundamentally different from king because california's law applies to people who are never charged with an offense d those who are discharged from lack of probable cause. there is nothing that can justify taking d.n.a. from these individuals who are not being prosecuted. king is tracking people as they go through the criminal justice system up through trial. >> counsel, i respect the sincerity of your v

what the supreme court said your particular people, particularly when you have literally argued haskell v. harris to the supreme court in maryland vs. king. you made those arguments. >> the supreme court never mentioned haskell. >> they never -- we never -- we never mention our cases unless we're reversing it. >> they didn't mention other cases where they were talking about arrestees. i don't think article 3 courts retry other cases. >> i'm simply saying that they heard your argument, ve very ones you're making to us today, despite your desire that they would go in a different direction, scrussties kennedy's opinion, which was mentioned, started going down those points and scalia's interpretation of that, it seems to me that that -- that this distinction you're making on an as applied basis can't possibly hold water. this is like fingerprinting. your people don't get removed from the fingerprint beas. they don't get removed from the d.n.a. base. >> i don't know that the supreme court addressed the issue you're presenting here because in this case, california does in the automatically destroy samp

we're here for the argument of haskell versus harris. judge gould is appearing by video. good afternoon judge gould, can you hear me? >> good afternoon. you are coming through loud and clear. are we coming through? >> great. i can hear you fine. >> okay, counsel ready? you may proceed. >> good afternoon. for the plaintiffs, i'd ask to reserve five minutes for the rebuttal. >> you have the clock. you'll have what is left over. >> may it please the court, this case is fundamentally different from king because california's law applies to people who are never charged with an offense and those who are discharged from lack of probable cause. under mclaughlin and gerstein. there is nothing that can justify taking d.n.a. from these individuals who are not being prosecuted. all of kings interest relate to tracking people as they go through the criminal justice system up through trial. >> counsel, i respect the sincerity of your view, but the reality is the supreme court said in king that d.n.a. was like fingerprinting. if all of the things that you say about your particular client