to searches and seizures. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). Further, once samples are obtained validly, they can be used for investigations of other crimes. Washington v. State, 653 So.2d 362, 364 (Fla.1994) (“We also find that once the samples were validly obtained, albeit in an unrelated case, the police were not restrained from using the samples as evidence in [a different] case.”). In order to comply with the Fourth Amendment, a search and seizure must be conducted with probable cause and with a warrant, “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Moreover, “[i]t is equally well settled that one of the specific 8) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the State has the burden of proving
holding that the state must prove voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence citing brewer v state 386 so2d 232 236 fla1980 holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence holding at trial a criminal defendant has the burden to prove his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence holding that a defendant must prove an affirmative defense at sentencing stage by a preponderance of evidence