I'm looking for a really good analysis, scientific or legal, that supports why DNA samples are testimonial evidence and thus protected by the Fifth Amendment (unlike blood, or hair, which are physical evidence and thus not implicated by the Fifth Amendment). I cannot possibly do a thorough review of the millions of scientific articles on the endless possibilities of the information we can get from DNA, but I hope to use this information some day to write a motion in limine.
I think it's fun to argue that 40 years of clearly established Fifth Amendment jurisprudence was wrong.
If there are any non-lawyers reading this, how do you feel about the fact that the government has the right to get your fingerprints / blood / hair and use it against you as they see fit? Do you think the government should be able to use your body to prosecute you? Do you think the right against self-incrimination should be involved in that determination at all?