Not really, Claymore. I will ask again : WHY has the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment only covers verbal testimony? Is any basis for such a conclusion given in the decisions, or did they just say "Well, it doesn't specifically include nonverbal testimony, so we won't protect it?" And actually, they could ask someone, even without articulable reason, to submit to a DNA test, without informing them that compliance was not mandatory. The Supreme Court has ruled that any "reasonable person" knows that they are not required to submit.