Analyzing the DNA samples of juveniles who have not been found guilty of any crime is an unconstitutional warrantless search, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In a unanimous decision, the justices said the state may force juveniles accused of certain serious offenses to provide a DNA sample. Justice Andrew Hurwitz, writing for the court, said that is little different than fingerprints or mug shots.

But Hurwitz said that legal parallel ceases to exist once the state submits that sample for processing by the Department of Public Safety crime laboratory.

He said that by doing the lab processing, the state obtains "uniquely identifying information about individual genetics."

What it also means, Hurwitz said, is that DNA profile is placed into both state and national databases so police agencies can use it to see if a youth is linked to any unsolved crimes. The justices said that, absent a juvenile actually being found delinquent of a crime, there is no reason for the government to have that information.

"Having a DNA profile before adjudication may conceivably speed such investigations," he wrote.

"But one accused of a crime, although having diminished expectations of privacy in some respects, does not forfeit Fourth Amendment protections with respect to other offenses not charged absent either probable cause or reasonable suspicion," Hurwitz continued. "An arrest for vehicular homicide, for example, cannot alone justify a warrantless search of an arrestee's financial records to see if he is also an embezzler."

The ruling could have broader implications.

Christina Phillis, director of Maricopa County's Office of Public Advocate, noted that other Arizona laws require similar testing of DNA samples taken from adults at the time of arrest. To date, though, Phillis said no adult who has not yet been convicted has mounted a similar challenge to this one. This case - and the logic espoused by Hurwitz - could provide the framework for the court to consider the issue.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, whose office had defended the DNA testing, said he was pleased the court will allow samples to be taken. But he disagreed with the conclusion that processing the sample amounted to invasion of privacy.

"We're not analyzing the DNA to determine peculiar biological conditions or propensities for disease or anything else of that sort," Montgomery said.