The analysis focuses on legislation that permits the non-consensual taking of DNA and fingerprint samples in a range of situations as well as legislation that allows the samples to be retained and stored indefinitely in DNA databases. Legislative changes in the powers to take non-consensual samples from suspects have had to confront the tensions between the risks involved with allowing non-consensual sample taking (violation of privacy rights) and the risks involved with criminality and the protection of public safety. The legislative review begins with the Penal Servitude Act of 1891, which was the first legal measure to provide for the measuring, photographing, and fingerprinting of convicted prisoners. The legal framework established by this Act ensured that a convicted prisoner could not be fingerprinted without a warrant issued by a magistrate on the application of a police officer not below the rank of superintendent. This legal framework remained in place for almost half a century until the Criminal Justice Bill of 1948, which allowed for the non-consensual taking of fingerprints from any arrested person. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 then extended these powers to include anyone appearing before magistrates in answer to a summons for any offense punishable by imprisonment. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) of 1984 further expanded police powers by allowing the police to regulate the taking of fingerprints on their own authority. This was followed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which extended police powers to take non-consensual fingerprints from any persons arrested for a recordable offense. The author also discusses the controversy surrounding the introduction of LIVESCAN fingerprint database consoles, which capture fingerprints electronically and sends them to a database for comparison. The legislative review thus illustrated the legislation of increasingly broad police powers to gain non-consensual fingerprint and DNA samples from criminal suspects. Footnotes