Police may now be able to force anyone under arrest — even for a minor shoplifting bust — to surrender a DNA sample without consent or a warrant, according to a controversial Supreme Court decision yesterday.
The bitterly divided court said that taking the genetic information by running what looks like a long Q-Tip along the inside of a person’s cheek and entering the information into a database is equivalent to collecting fingerprints and mug shots.
“This ruling is going to be great for law enforcement,’’ an NYPD official told The Post. “Those guys arrested for misdemeanor crimes are no longer going to be able to fly under the radar for felony crimes they’ve committed.’’
Currently, the NYPD typically collects DNA from suspects in violent felonies or sex crimes, but only with consent or a judge’s OK.
Under yesterday’s ruling, authorities can routinely swab even turnstile jumpers without either.
Still, “it’s too soon to know what effect, if any, the ruling has on NYPD procedures,’’ said department spokesman Paul Browne.
Another NYPD source said, “I know that it’s going to get the civil-rights groups all revved up . . . but I really don’t see how an innocent person could be affected by the ruling.
“If you don’t commit crimes, then you have nothing to worry about,” he said.
Yesterday’s ruling bitterly divided the court.
“Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police-booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-4 split.
But dissenting conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a stinging response, “Make no mistake about it: Because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, agreed that the ruling was deeply flawed.
“The Fourth Amendment has long been understood to mean that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime — and all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search — without individualized suspicion,” he said in a statement. “Today’s decision eliminates that crucial safeguard.’’
Additional reporting by Larry Celona