intrusion than a buccal swab, and no relevant information was found from that operation, by Judge Wilner’s logic, only a minimal intrusion would have occurred. If a rectal examination of a prisoner were to be conducted, and if nothing were found the intrusion would be less than the intrusion would be if contraband were found, but unquestionably the digital penetration would be the same. Such results are illogical. In the case sub judice, the intrusion that we must assess under the Fourth Amendment balancing test is obtaining DNA from individuals under tire Act, i.e., a buccal swab. Several courts have held that this type of search (or, in the case of blood tests and the like, more invasive searches) is minimal when the person being searched is incarcerated. See Jones, 962 F.2d at 307 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 977, 113 S.Ct. 472,
holding that while more invasive than fingerprinting that a blood test to obtain dna was still a minor intrusion holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding presumption of paternity that applies to intact family prevented an order by the court for a blood test or the use of privately obtained blood test to rebut the presumption of legitimacy holding blood test taken for independent medical purpose is not same as blood test taken pursuant to section 3755a