"Our government has already made clear that we do not support the blanket retention of all forensic information taken from innocent people,".
I call bullshit, you changed the definition of 'innocent' to exclude people arrested for violent or sexual crime even if they were found innocent by a court. Sexual crime is nothing but an allegation without a conviction, how can it be a violent 'crime' if they didn't do it?
Isn't that how is starts, you play with the definition of 'innocent', then once you're keeping some innocent peoples DNA, how can you justify not keeping other people's and pretty soon you're treating 'arrested' as synonymous with 'convicted' and keeping DNA for anyone who has ever dealt with the police.
Then some judge comes along, realizes a problem, the DNA is being used to prefilter for crimes, and so can only work if *everyone*'s DNA is recorded from birth, every tourist, every illegal immigrant, everyone, in order to reduce miscarriages of justice that result from the prefiltering.
Then the policy of only keeping samples for guilty people becomes DNA and fingerprinting from birth, and taking fingerprint and DNA samples of visiting tourists, and random sampling of people's identity to catch illegal immigrants,
'Innocent'? , you have to restore the definition of innocent to the court decision. The court knows best, it's the impartial review of the evidence, not the partial view of the arresting officer.