The Supreme Court today upheld a Maryland law that allows officials to take DNA without a warrant from those who have been arrested, but not convicted of a serious crime.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, for a 5-4 majority, wrote, "the Court concludes that DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure."

He called the buccal swab to the mouth to obtain DNA a "minor intrusion."

"When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito.

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the opinion and was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Scalia said today's decision represents an "incursion" upon the Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable search and seizure.

"Make no mistake about it," Scalia writes. "As an entirely predictable consequence of today's decision your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA data base if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason."

He said that "solving unsolved crimes" is a noble objective but it "occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches."

While all states require DNA from individuals convicted of a felony, the federal government and 26 states also take DNA samples from at least some arrestees.

The case concerns Alonzo Jay King Jr., who claims his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested in 2009 for assault. At the time of his arrest, pursuant to Maryland's DNA Collection Act, officials swabbed his cheek and collected his DNA without a warrant.

His 2009 sample was later matched in a state data base to DNA from a 2003 rape case. . Based on the new evidence, King was eventually charged with the 2003 rape and robbery. He is serving a life sentence.

Lawyers for King appealed the decision, arguing that taking the warrantless DNA from someone who has been arrested but not convicted of a serious crime violates the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable search and seizure. The Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled in King's favor.

During arguments in February, Justice Alito said of the case, "I think this is perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this Court has heard in decades."

Kannon K. Shanmugam, a lawyer for King, argued that the government has no right to forgo ordinary rules requiring a warrant and probable cause before forcing an arrestee to submit to a search involving a physical intrusion into the body for investigatory purposes.

"Our DNA is our blueprint: an individual's DNA contains not only deeply personal information about the subject's medical history and genetic conditions, but also information that can be used to make predictions about a host of physical an behavioral characteristics, ranging from a subject's age, ethnicity, and intelligence to the subject's propensity for violence and addiction," Shanmugam wrote in court papers.

But lawyers for Maryland defend the law. In court, Katherine Winfree, chief deputy attorney general in Baltimore , pointed out that since 2009, when Maryland began to collect DNA samples from arrestees charged with violent crimes and burglary, there had been "225 matches, 75 prosecutions and 42 convictions."

The purpose of the law was to identify people "and to use the information to make bail determinations for people who are validly in their custody," she said.

The U.S. government argued in favor of the law, saying officials are forbidden to look at the DNA for anything except identification information.

The federal government says the judge who issued the ruling had exceeded his authority and that his decision should be suspended while the appeal is underway.

U.S. District Judge Edward Korman of New York had given the Food and Drug Administration until Monday to lift all age limits on Plan B and cheaper generic. The judge mandated that emergency contraception be sold just like aspirin.

On Tuesday, the FDA said anyone 15 or older could begin buying one brand, Plan B One-Step, without a prescription two years younger than the current age limit of 17.

The Prudential Regulation Authority said it would release more information when it had concluded discussions with all banks, including, where necessary, if banks need to take steps to meet any shortfalls.

Lloyds and RBS each said on Wednesday they did not need to issue more equity, and would meet extra capital needs by selling assets and through retained earnings and restructuring plans that are underway.

(Reporting by Steve Slater; Editing by Matt Scuffham)

A 45-year-old man who had recently returned from a 40-day visit to Jordan was hospitalized in Tuscany with a high fever, cough and respiratory problems, the ministry said. Tuscan regional officials say that a young child who is related to the man and a work colleague also have the virus, the ministry said.

All three patients were reported to be in good condition and were being treated in isolation.

The virus is related to SARS, which killed about 800 people in a global epidemic in 2003. The U.N. health agency said earlier Saturday that it had been informed of 51 confirmed cases of the new virus since September.

Thirty of those cases were fatal, including that of a Frenchman who died earlier in the week. Cases in Britain and Germany also have been reported.

Most of those infected had traveled to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Pakistan.

However it's not always clear if our new labors to save species are herculean or Sisyphean. The only hope for sustaining America's whooping cranes might be men dressed in white costumes flying ultralight aircraft. Rescuing a single humpback whale may inadvertently leave a unique butterfly habitat destroyed. To save endangered salmon, humans might find themselves hazing sea lions with firecrackers. The future oflooks more and more complicated as humans become entangled in the lives of animals, and people can't always tell if their efforts will ultimately be futile, or worse, do more harm than good.

In his new book "Wild Ones" (Penguin), which hit shelves today (May 16), Jon Mooallem tackles this maddening uncertainty through the eyes of people working with animals that have fallen victim to human whims among them, birds dependent on people to survive,feeling the pressures of climate change, and butterflies boxed into a broken habitat. Mooallem, who is a contributing writer to the New York Times Magazine, talked to LiveScience this week about his book and how to decide which species to save and why. The following is an interview, edited for length and clarity. []

LiveScience: An underlying theme in your book seems to be that humans are uncomfortable with admitting how much power we have over other living things on the planet. Why do you think this is especially the case with animals?

Jon Mooallem: In just a very basic way, animals are the creatures we share the planet with. They're not like trees and rocks. They're not part of the scenery. They seem to have lives of their own going on, and that makes us really curious about them. And for a long time in human history, a lot of animals were also our competitors. We had to deal with predators. We were afraid of them, or we were trying to catch the same fish. Now we've evolved to a point where we really have so much of the planet on lockdown that even these rivals or these animals we've looked up to are under our control, and it's an incredibly uncomfortable thought. We shouldn't have that kind of purchase over these other beings.

LS: Some , like the Lange's metalmark butterfly featured in your book, are already living outside of their original context in the wild and, at this point, their extinction wouldn't seem to tear a big hole in the ecosystem. Is there an ultimate argument for saving a species even when their importance in the ecosystem is not so obvious?

JM: That gets at a core confusion in how we think about a lot of endangered species. Some of the arguments that we use to justify working to save these animals really aren't applicable and they really aren't the most powerful arguments either. Sometimes we try to make scientific arguments for species where it really comes down to a matter of emotion or even nostalgia. We'd like to preserve some of these things maybe because they're beautiful, maybe because we don't want to feel guilty about having exterminated them. I think those can be two really valid reasons for working very hard to save an . There's something gorgeous about trying to preserve something that we care about in an aesthetic sense or an emotional sense. Conservation, I find, doesn't really know how to talk through those arguments that well yet, and oftentimes people are wary of making them.

LS: Do you think revising our definition of wildness would change the way we look at animals and conservation?

JM: That's one of the real challenges right now, to figure out what it is we want to preserve when we say we want to preserve wilderness or wildness. The fact is that preserving a lot of species involves a kind of hands-on management that is completely at odds with our more romantic ideas of what wildness is. That doesn't necessarily mean that those projects aren't worth undertaking. I think it means we need to recalibrate our idea of what wildness is.

LS: You touch on how our emotional attachment to certain animals, like polar bears, colors the way we interact with them. Did you find yourself feeling sympathetic to any of your animal subjects?

JM: Amazingly, no. I was surprised by that. Doing reporting about wild animals actually involves very little exposure to actual animals. You always have to see the animal through the filter of the people who have access to it. I didn't write a book where I just wandered around the woods hoping to encounter a mountain lion. I went to the polar bear capital of the world in Manitoba to look at polar bears in a place where 10,000 tourists come every year to look at them. And in that context, I felt like the animals did become obscured somehow like they were part of the scenery individual animals, in any case. When I went to the place where they were breeding endangered butterflies it was basically a ramshacklefarm where the butterflies were in plastic deli containers on plants, so it was hard to form a one-on-one, gushy bond with the animals. []

LS: Did any of your human subjects emerge as personal heroes for you?

JM: I found something heroic in almost everyone in the book. Maybe not a storybook form of heroism, where you see an obstacle and you work very hard and you surmount it. It's more like a Zen heroism, where you see an obstacle and you try to surmount it, and you realize that it's going to be much more complicated and perhaps never-ending, and you still try to surmount it anyway. I think that there's a real nobility in that. I think the people at Operation Migration the nonprofit that flies ultralight aircraft in front of whooping cranes to teach them to migrate I think that they're a really exaggerated example of that in the sense that they're spending all fall on the road and trying to get these birds to Florida amid tons of very idiosyncratic frustrations, but somehow they're still able to wake up in the morning at dawn and check the wind and see if it's a good day to fly. I think, not just in terms of being a conservationist but in terms of being a human being, there's some really valuable lessons to be learned there. []

LS: Did you have a different idea about how this book was going to turn out when you started writing it?

JM: I don't know that I had expectations that were upended or anything like that. I will say I was pretty amazed at how much chance played into the stories of these people and the stories of these animals. When you scratch the surface of a lot of these recoveries and try to figure out, 'How do we get to this point where there's only 40 some-odd butterflies on a piece of land?' or 'How did this project get so elaborate that we have men in costumes flyingin front of birds?' when you try to trace back those histories and bring them up to the present you realize there isn't any grand design. The endangered species are so reliant on humankind right now that simple things like when a committed lepidopterist who's working to save the butterflies suddenly gets a rash and he has to give up his work little accidents like this, little freak occurrences, have humungous repercussions for the animals themselves.

LS: After immersing yourself in this world for a while, do you have any recommendations for conservationists or do you see any problems that they are going to need to confront in the near future?

JM: Conservation is a national project. Under the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws, it's a project that our government has taken on and thinks there's going to have to be some really substantive policy talks about how that work is going to move forward. Just from a sheer funding standpoint, there's going to be some difficult decisions to make as a lot of the threats against these species continue to ramp up, and the work gets even more involved and in some cases more futile. I don't know at this point that I have policy talking points because I think the problem right now is that we're just not asking the right questions in a lot of cases. It's not a matter of having the right answers but basic questions like, Why are we saving this particular creature? Are we saving it because we want it to be part of this ecosystem, or are we saving it more for aesthetic reasons? What happens when the needs of an endangered species conflict with the needs of a person on the same land? I think we just need a clearer sense of what our priorities actually are and why we're doing what we're doing before we can go about trying to do it better.

Follow Megan Gannon onandFollow us ,& . Original article on .

MIAMI, May 20 (Reuters) - San Francisco is favored to be named the host city for the 50th Super Bowl when National Football League (NFL) owners vote Tuesday on the site of the 2016 championship game.

The Californian city, home to the NFL's 49ers, is up against South Florida (Miami) while Houston will compete with the losing bid for the 2017 game, which will also be decided on Tuesday.

All the focus, however, is on the prestige of hosting the 50th anniversary game, which the NFL is promising to make the biggest and best finale ever.

The San Francisco Bay Area has hosted one Super Bowl, in 1985, while the Miami area has enjoyed the economic boost from hosting the NFL's championship game a record-tying 10 times, most recently in 2010.

But that extra experience appears to be the only obvious advantage Miami has.

The NFL has said for several years that they wanted to see upgrades made to the 26-year-old Miami Gardens venue but a bid by Dolphins owner Stephen Ross to get state funding for a major redevelopment failed and the billionaire has made it clear he will not fund the changes alone.

That setback has left the South Florida bid committee talking about a 'Plan B' with the existing stadium but they have been badly damaged by the dropping of the planned upgrade.

"Following the Miami Dolphins' failure to secure public funding for renovations ... San Francisco sits in the driver's seat," Albert Breer wrote on the NFL website on Monday.

While the South Florida bid is now left to focus on downtown events and beachside activities, San Francisco, in contrast, is proudly highlighting the state-of-the-art nature of their $1.2 billion stadium in Santa Clara set to open next year.

The San Francisco bid, which was presented to the NFL's 32 owners on shiny, new iPads, and which has been backed by some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley, such as Apple and Google, promises an unmatched venue.

As well as ultra-luxury suits, Levi's Stadium will feature stadium-wide wifi, streaming video, mobile connectivity, in-seat tablet holders and huge HD video boards measuring over 13,000 square feet.

"I think we will win on our own right," Steve Van Dorn, chief executive of the Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce, told the Silicon Valley Mercury News, "I'm feeling very good about it."

If that confidence proves well-placed, Miami would be left to fight Houston for the 2017 game with the Texas city viewed as favorite in that contest.

Houston's indoor Reliant Stadium hosted the Super Bowl in 2004 and is considered superior to Miami's ageing arena and the setback in getting Florida funds for the stadium was seen as a major boost for Houston.

"Certainly what happened doesn't help Miami's bid. There's no doubt about that," Houston Texans owner Bob McNair said. "But that doesn't say that the owners couldn't decide to still go to Miami."

South Florida will hope that being better provided for the week-long build up of events and parties could yet swing a big game their way.

"We're extremely optimistic that our bid is going to set a new level and they're going to have a tough decision to make," Miami bid chairman Rodney Barreto said recently.

"We've put some new things on the table that are really exciting and are exciting for the South Florida area."

Next year's Super Bowl will be played in East Rutherford, New Jersey, at the shared home of the New York Giants and New York Jets while the 2015 game will be played in Glendale, Arizona, at the home of the Arizona Cardinals. (Editing by Frank Pingue)

Foster, who ran for 1,424 yards last season, was injured on the first play of team drills on Tuesday. Coach Gary Kubiak says they will know more about the injury after Foster sees a doctor.

It was unclear exactly how he was injured, but he was taken off the practice field on a cart.

Kubiak says it is "always concerning" when a player in injured in practice, but that he has to work everybody in order for the team to improve.

Receiver Andre Johnson says he saw Foster limping off the field after a running play. Johnson says: "I think if it was real bad, I think we would've known about it by now. I don't think that it's (anything) real bad."

REDMOND, Washington (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp unveiled the "Xbox One" on Tuesday, its first new gaming console in eight years, and its strongest push so far to dominate consumers' living rooms with an array of exclusive media content.

The Xbox One took four years to develop and will be the launchpad for a "Halo" live-action video series produced by Steven Spielberg.

It will be sold worldwide "later this year," games unit chief Don Mattrick told reporters at an event at the software company's campus near Seattle, without providing details on timing or pricing.

The device will also be the first platform to release the next installment in Activision Blizzard Inc's blockbuster shooter franchise, "Call of Duty".

Microsoft hopes its third-generation Xbox console will attract video game fans who are increasingly sampling games on mobile devices, while also becoming a hub for living room entertainment.

The new device interacts with a television, responds to voice and gesture commands, includes group video calling on Skype, 15 exclusive game titles and original programming content.

The Xbox One will chiefly compete with Nintendo Co's new Wii U and Sony Corp's forthcoming PlayStation 4 for a bigger slice of the $65 billion-a-year computer game market.

Microsoft did not refer to the new gadget as a "console" but rather an entertainment system, signaling its renewed focus on making the Xbox a sort of window for media and entertainment content, said Forrester Research's James McQuivey.

The software giant is "trying to break out of the category" and risks having to battle not just Sony and Nintendo but Apple Inc, Google Inc and others to control consumer entertainment in the age of Smart TVs, tablets and smartphones, he said.

Acclaimed movie maker Steven Spielberg will be executive-producing a television series based on Microsoft's blockbuster sci-fi game "Halo" -- one of the game industry's largest franchises by revenue -- for the Xbox One.

The new console will also offer exclusive National Football League content and eight new game franchises, executives said.

Yusuf Mehdi, SVP of Microsoft's Interactive Entertainment Business declined to put a figure on the company's investment in exclusive game and video content, but called it a "very serious commitment," in an interview with Reuters.

CONSOLE TO MOBILE

Console gaming still accounts for the largest share, of about 42 percent, of the $65 billion world gaming market, according to Microsoft. But playing games on smartphones and tablets is gaining ground.

Videogame publishers have moved towards integrating their games across consoles, PCs and mobile devices to keep gamers engaged. Microsoft said it will have an updated SmartGlass app that connects the Xbox One to tablets and smartphones.

"This is what we needed, a machine that could connect all the possibilities the devices that exist can bring," Yves Guillemot, CEO of games publisher Ubisoft, told Reuters.

The device will have 8 gigabytes of memory and comes with a new-generation Kinect sensor that communicates a user's voice and gesture commands to the console.

The original Kinect was launched in 2010 and sold separately. Bundling the Kinect -- which costs $100 in the current version -- may inflate the Xbox One's overall price tag.

Mehdi said Microsoft is still "evaluating" sale price.

"As a gamer, I wanted to see the additional features to make the gaming experience better," said Dennis "Thresh" Fong, a former professional video gamer and now CEO of gamer network Raptr.

Sony had touted the new PlayStation 4's live streaming of games and social features like a "share" button on its controller when it announced its new console, Fong said.

Despite its strong brand and 'cool' factor, the Xbox itself is not a key financial factor for the world's largest software maker. Its Entertainment & Devices unit is set to break $10 billion in sales for the first time this year, but that's half the sales of its Windows unit, and a lot less profitable, averaging less than 15 percent margin compared to 60 percent or higher for Windows or Office.

The company has more than 46 million users of its online gaming and digital entertainment service Xbox Live. That is still a fraction of the people who pay for its software.

Microsoft's stock closed down 0.7 percent at $34.85.

"Xbox is not going to move the revenue needle but it might change the business model for the better as Microsoft tries to learn how to have the kind of relationship Xbox does" with consumers, McQuivey said.

(Editing by Gerald E. McCormick, Dan Grebler, Nick Zieminski and Andrew Hay)

NASHVILLE, Tenn (Reuters) - At least 30 people were arrested and a police officer sustained a head injury when a celebration of the University of Louisville's national collegiate basketball victory Monday night got out of hand, police said Tuesday.

Those arrested faced a variety of charges, primarily disorderly conduct and alcohol-related offenses, according to Officer Carey Klain, spokeswoman for the Louisville Police Department.

The men's basketball team, the Cardinals, beat the University of Michigan 82-76 in the NCAA Division I championship game Monday night. While most of the thousands of fans in the area around the campus celebrated peacefully, some rowdy fans had to be subdued, according to university spokesman John Drees.

Overhead cameras showed that a woman appeared to have stripped off her clothes, and police went into the crowd to arrest her. She was not found, but the crowd got rough, and two officers were knocked down, Drees said.

"The police then decided it was time to disperse the crowd and they brought out the pepper spray," Drees said. But the crowd still refused to leave and started throwing beer bottles at the police. One officer suffered a head injury from being hit in the back of the head.

He was released from a hospital Tuesday morning. Other officers suffered cuts and bruises and were treated at the scene.

Police also reported that guns were fired into the air, a mattress was set on fire and roads were blocked by unruly fans. Some small trees were destroyed by students who climbed into them, Drees said.

The Louisville women's basketball team is facing the University of Connecticut in New Orleans on Tuesday for the NCAA Division I championship. If it wins, officials expect another celebration in Louisville. Police cautioned that disorderly conduct and unlawful use of firearms would not be tolerated.

"We're excited about the possibility of bringing home two championships," said Drees. "The women get great support. We do expect to have some crowd and have some celebration."

Coach Rick Pitino of the men's team quietly arrived back in town Tuesday afternoon. A parade may be held in the near future, according to Drees.

(Reporting by Tim Ghianni; Editing by Mary Wisniewski, Greg McCune and Steve Orlofsky)

Teacher Orvar Arnarson, 41, and student Andrimar Pordarson, 25, jumped separately, not in tandem, on Saturday after successfully completing two jumps earlier that day with 20 other people. The two Icelandic skydivers did not return from their third jump, tipping off an hours-long air and ground search around the Zephyrhills facility, about 30 miles northeast of Tampa. The bodies were discovered later that evening in the woods.

Investigators will review the helmet cam footage to try to glean more about what happened, said Pasco County sheriff's spokeswoman Melanie Snow.

The cause of death was blunt force trauma, the medical examiner's office said. Autopsy results were pending, but a preliminary investigation determined that the manner of death was accidental.

The men didn't deploy their main parachutes, which could mean that they lost altitude awareness and didn't know where they were during the jump, Skydive City co-owner T.K. Hayes told The Associated Press on Sunday. Both victims had backup automatic activation devices, but they didn't have time to fully inflate.

Out of just over 3 million jumps, 19 skydivers died last year across the U.S., according to the United States Parachute Association. Experts said it is "very rare" for two jumpers to die in the same accident.

"It happens from time to time if two skydivers collide while flying their parachutes if they don't see each other," said Nancy Koreen, Director of Sport Promotion for association.

"In that situation, their canopies can tangle, causing an accident. I don't yet know the details of this particular accident, but from what I understand, this was a different case," she said, adding that "it's extremely rare for this type of double fatality to occur."

The victims were part of a skydiving group from Iceland who travel to Florida annually.