They would have eventually been solved - just delayed the process by a few months.
Time = taxpayer money. If a suspect is going to be found guilty anyway, why expend more resources than necessary to make it happen?
I am split on this. I can see the argument from the 4th Amendment, but it depends on what one considers an "unreasonable search and seizure". If a person can be linked to past crimes is it still unreasonable?
Gansler's proclamation that "the Court of Appeals decision runs counter to what other courts nationwide have held" is weak. That's why we have separate judiciaries; rulings are supposed to be based on facts, not whatever the other guys are doing.
On the other side, in an era where laws so often seem to favor criminals over victims this is one determination that could give law enforcement some help. If this evidence was allowed to be gathered and used, it could not only make the process quicker but also prevent erroneous convictions.
Or it could be another dangerous precedent that leads to everyone being cataloged and tracked...