needs to be done only once, does not invade the person’s private life or thoughts, and can be scheduled in advance for a convenient time. Undeniably, DNA testing has proven to be a valid and useful crime-solving tool. Moreover, we do not think saliva sampling involves a significant intrusion into a person’s bodily security. See In re Nontestimonial Identification Order, 762 A.2d at 1244. Finally, the order was issued upon the authorization of a judicial officer, as suggested in Davis. See Davis, 394 U.S. at 728, 89 S.Ct. at 1398, 22 L.Ed.2d at 681. For these reasons, we believe the nontestimonial identification order at issue here could be constitutionally based upon a finding of reasonable grounds to suspect rather than upon a showing of probable cause. See Madson, 638 P.2d at 32 (<HOLDING>); In re Nontestimonial Identification Order,
holding that a search of a students purse that was not based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the fourth amendment if at the time of the defendants arrest police had probable cause to believe that an offense has been is being or will be committed holding that statute allowing issuance of detention order based on reasonable grounds not amounting to probable cause to arrest to suspect the person described in the affidavit committed the offense did not violate the fourth amendment holding a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the fourth amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed