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 are reversing it. >> they did mention other cases it upheld or struck down d.n.a. testing of arrestees. i don't think that article iii 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 are making to us today, despite 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 that this 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 supreme court addressed the issue you are presenting here because in this c

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

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

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 are reversing it. >> they did mention other cases that it upheld or struck down d.n.a. testing of arrestees. i don't think that article iii courts secretly reach out to decide other cases and i don't think you can judge that based on -- i'm not simply citing this. i'm simply saying they heard your argument, the very ones you are making to us today, despite your desire that they would go in a different direction, justice kennedy's opinion, which the chief has just mentioned and points,going down those and scalia's interpretation of that, it seems to me that this making on anou're as applied basis can't possibly hold water. this is like finger printing. 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 supreme court addressed the issue you are presenti