whether or not they're charged with that, they're released, justice scalia pinted out, a traffic accident, whether or not people were charged. i'm having difficulty understanding how you can carve out from 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 fi