ms. haskell has petitioned to remove her d.n.a. sample from the system? >> no. >> there is a statutory remedy to permit her to do that, but she's not availed herself of that. >> there's a statutory remedy but -- >> but she hasn't pursued it if the state said yes, we'll take your d.n.a. sample out of the codis system and destroy the sample itself, she'd get all the relief she was entitled to, would she not? >> if that happened. but that would be imposing an exhaustion requirement. there's only an exhaustion requirement only under certain circumstances. >> would your argument also apply to fingerprinting? could you bring a lawsuit claiming that fingerprints that were taken from the same people that you just described are likewise unconstitutional. people were released, they were never charged, we've got this record that remains there after this occurs. the supreme court said fingerprints and d.n.a. are constitutionally the same for purposes of this setting. how can you distinguish between those two? >> i don't read the case saying that they're the same. the

ms. haskell petitioned to remove her d.n.a. sample from the system? no. >> there is a statutory remedy to permit her to do that but she's not availed herself of that remedy. a discretionary statutory remedy but there's no element.n >> she hadn't pursued it but we don't know what the response would be. if they say yes we'll take it out of the codis system and itself, shesample would get all of the relief she's entitled to, would she not? >> if that happened, yes. that would impose an exhaustion requirement. there's only an exhaustion the 1983 suitser under. under pat't apply board of regents. that would impose an exhaustion requirement that is not appropriate here. >> would your argument also apply to fingerprinting? could you bring a lawsuit claiming that fingerprints that were taken from the same people that you just described are like wise unconstitutional because people were released and never charged? you've got this record that remains there after this occurs. the supreme court said fingerprints and d.n.a. are constitutionally the same for purpos

ms. haskell recognizing what king does restrict to simply say go to the supreme court decision, it talks about arrest by probable cause. ms. haskell's counsel says we can draw the line and charges or judicial determination of probable cause, and therefore free reign under the california statute. what is wrong on that line as far as and during how king applies to this case? >> that interpretation would not be consistent with king which recognizes that the identification information, whether it is bigger prints, photographs, or d.n.a., and form the charging decision. >> counsel, what role does justice scalia's dissents -- how would this respond to the points, make no doubt about it, as a consequence of today's decision, your d.n.a. can be taken and entered into a national dna base if you are arrested rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason. so he is saying even if they have probable cause, they got it wrong, something that did not chart, but you can be put there under the rationale of king. how do we interpret that? >> the decision -- justice scalia made a number of factual errors in t

ms. haskell recognizing what king does restrict, to simply say go to the supreme court decision, it talks about a valid arrest supported by probable cause. says we cancouncil draw the line with a judicial determination of probable cause and therefore am a free reign under the california statute. what is wrong with that line in terms of did -- interpreting how king applies to this case? nothat interpretation would be consistent with king, which recognizes that the identification information am a whether it is fingerprints, photographs, or dna, informs the charging decision. scalia role does justice -- how would this respond to ?udge mcewen's for whatever reason, they got it wrong, something you did not charge. how do we interpret that? >> justice bill leah made a number of factual errors in that analysis. there are criteria, the court announced what the criteria is for taking, analyzing, and keeping the sample. >> at every juncture, the u.s. supreme court recognized and focused on the national import of king. -- ine rogers stayed recognition of the fact that it implicates important feature

haskell letter jacket. i think it was a very good accomplishment for ms. rosalyn at the time.this is the plains united methodist church. it is only steps to where president carter asked ms. rosalyn out on a date for the first time. it is also where they got married. it is a very special place for president and mrs. carter. and a special place for plains. this is the train depot in plains, georgia. it is the oldest building here in plains. in 1976, this is the logical choice for headquarters. mrs. carter was a key figure in his campaign. and as you can imagine in 1976, the hustle and bustle of all of the activity in the campaign with tables and desk and phone going off and letters coming in and out. ms. roslyn was here helping run he campaign. and the whole family had a part to play in the campaign. his sons and his daughter had a ole in the campaign. and of course, his mother, ms. lillian, and ms. roselyn's other, ms. ally. they would have sat out here on the platform, greeting visitors. this is where rosalyn carter helped organize the peanut brigade. it was a technique used d