>> no, i think once the person -- at once decision is made not to prosecute, twhauns person is unconditionally released as was the case with three of our plaintiffs, that interest is no longer there. >> even before being released, the court acknowledges there is a government interest in knowing if that person is wanted elsewhere, is that not inconsistent with your argument? >> i don't think so. first of all, finger prints is how that determination is made. if somebody is want sd not done with d.n.a. if somebody is implicated in another crime is done with d.n.a. with california's infrastructure and most importantly with the current protections for privacy, that determination cannot be made in time to be meaningful for people who are arrested and then released before arraignment or at arraignment. because remember this court -- >> that was in king too, wasn't it? >> well, no. true ything you say was in king and as judge smith pointed out and justice scalia pointed out in decent. so where are we? >> you started by saying this case is different and all the interests, many of the interest in king d