Attorney re-fingerprinting story is quite disturbing

The May 24 Daily Journal article, "State high court says lawyers must pay for re-fingerprinting," is quite disturbing.

The critical paragraph reads "Many of the state's 190,000 active lawyers must be re-fingerprinted because for more than 25 years the Bar did not keep the prints of all of admission applicants as required by law." (Emphasis added)

Except for a life-time bureaucrats who work for the State Bar, what did the rest of us have to do with the State Bar "losing" fingerprints taken prior to anyone's admission to the Bar? If this is not group punishment, one does not know what is.

More importantly, perhaps, this would seem to be a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (unreasonable searches and seizures) and perhaps the Fifth Amendment (privilege against self-incrimination).

If there is no probable cause to believe that any lawyer "to be re-fingerprinted" has committed a crime, then what is the basis for this "requirement"?

It is easy to say that this is a "mere technicality" so that the Bar is able to cooperate with law enforcement in terms of finding out "bad lawyers." However, that is for which the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment were designed: technicalities to protect otherwise presumptively innocent individuals.

I look forward to some downtown law firm seeking declaratory relief in federal court, so as to nullify this blatantly unconstitutional edict.