The U.S. Supreme Court got it right when it comes to police collecting DNA samples from people arrested for serious crimes. It should be allowed.

Presently, law enforcement in Minnesota cannot collect DNA without a court order. We hope the Supreme Court ruling changes the conversation in Minnesota. This tool could allow authorities to solve cold cases and bring about justice for many families seeking resolution. And it could be useful in proving many people to be innocent of crimes of which they have been wrongly convicted.

For example, we personally know one Albert Lea father whose son is in prison, convicted of a serious crime in a neighboring county back in the years before DNA evidence. He wishes authorities would take a DNA sample to prove his son’s supposed innocence. If only this procedure was in place, their lives could be much different. At least, they would have hard evidence one way or the other.

The debate in the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling is over the Fourth Amendment, which bars the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. It isn’t a liberal-versus-conservative debate, either, with the justices not voting in their typical blocs.

We agree with the majority of justices that DNA collecting should fall into the category of fingerprinting and photographing during police booking procedures. Why? It seems hard to argue that DNA collecting would be “unreasonable” by modern standards of investigations — especially when cast in the light that it could protect people from wrongful charges or convictions. This step is good for the individual and the greater public.

There always is strong debate in America over the failures of the justice system to punish the bad guys, and here is a common sense tool that helps law enforcement, prosecutors and judges do just that. The system, thanks to technology, is getting better. We hope the Minnesota courts can begin a conversation to look at the issue all over again.