What do the cases US v. Cotner, US v. Hollins, Gilbert v. California, and US v. Wade signify?

The cases US v. Cotner, US v. Hollins, Gilbert v. California, and US v. Wade are significant because they collectively affirm that taking handwriting exemplars does not violate an individual's constitutional rights. These rulings established that handwriting analysis constitutes a form of identification that falls within law enforcement's investigative powers. The courts have determined that, unlike other forms of evidence that may be more invasive or require a warrant, obtaining a handwriting sample is a less intrusive action and can be justified under the principle of legitimate governmental interest in identifying individuals involved in criminal activity. This principle upholds the balance between individual rights and the needs of law enforcement.

In the context of the other choices, they do not reflect the legal precedents or implications found in these cases. The focus on typing as a form of identification, the analysis of digital signatures, and video surveillance in handwriting cases diverge from the central issue addressed in these rulings, which is specifically related to the constitutionality of obtaining handwriting samples.