releasees especially — individuals who while in custody have been subject to much more severe intrusions if their corporeal privacy than a sterile blood draw ..., and who therefore leave prison with substantially reduced sensitivities to such exposure — the DNA Act’s compelled breach of their bodily integrity is all the less offensive.”). The two intrusions at issue — the initial blood draw and the maintenance of the genetic information in CODIS indefinitely — must be considered against the backdrop of the probationer’s or releasee’s reduced expectation of privacy in information related to their identity. In general, the Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit have deemed the level of intrusion caused by a blood or saliva test to be minimal. See Skinner, 489 U.S. at 625, 109 S.Ct. 1402 (<HOLDING>); Boling, 101 F.3d at 1340 (noting “minimal
holding search of blood alcohol tests not permitted under section 1547 where suspect under arrest and police did not request testing holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted holding that blood tests do not infringe significant privacy interests recognizing that schmerber stated that societys judgment that blood tests do not constitute an unduly extensive imposition on an individuals privacy and bodily integrity holding that the best interest of the child is the paramount concern in determining whether to order blood tests to determine paternity