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 samples once no charges are filed. at least that part of the process is different. could you address that? you mentioned that that was what your concern was. >> it is very different. in maryland, as soon as charges were dismissed or if there was no judicial finding of proximate cause, the sample would be destroyed, it would not even be analyzed. in california it's very different. even if a judge says there is no proximate cause to think that this person committed -- >> that's another case for another