CopyCited 72 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 6, 2003 | 277 Ga. 282, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 3004
...Ryan, supra at 159. This Court too has recognized and applied a "special needs" exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. In Adams v. State, supra, this Court was faced with a challenge to the facial validity of OCGA §
17-10-15(b), which permits the victim of a crime involving significant exposure to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) to request that the person arrested for the crime submit to an HIV blood test....
...trusion occasioned by the search, the government's interest outweighed that of the individual. Consequently, the Court concluded that the search was reasonable. However, in so doing, this Court stressed that: The testing procedure prescribed by OCGA §
17-10-15(b) is civil, not criminal, in nature....
...se to believe that there was significant exposure to HIV can learn whether the person arrested for that crime is carrying the virus. The results cannot be used against the defendant in any criminal proceeding arising out of the alleged offense. OCGA §
17-10-15(h). Moreover, the test results are disclosed only to the victim, public health authorities, the court which ordered the test, and the penal institution in which the defendant is confined. OCGA §
17-10-15(f)....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 4, 1998 | 269 Ga. 405
...May 4, 1998. *269 John Dee Staggs, Jr., Waycross, for Malik "Chavis" Adams. Theo M. Sereebutra, Asst. Dist. Atty., Waycross, for the State. THOMPSON, Justice. In this case of first impression, we are called upon to decide the facial validity of OCGA §
17-10-15(b)....
...*270 Woods' fingers were cut during the course of the struggle, and he was bleeding, too. Although, outwardly, appellant exhibited no signs of having contracted AIDS, the State filed a motion to compel him to submit to an HIV test pursuant to OCGA §
17-10-15(b)....
...er the body has created antibodies in response to the virus. And because these antibodies can take a number of months to develop, [4] a negative test result does not necessarily mean that the individual tested does not have HIV. The Legislation OCGA §
17-10-15(b) provides: A victim or the parent or legal guardian of a minor or incompetent victim of a sexual offense as defined in Code Section
31-22-9.1 or other crime which involves significant exposure as defined by subsection (g) of this Code s...
...compliance with the rules adopted by the Department of Human Resources. The cost of the test shall be borne by the victim or by the arrested person, in the discretion of the court. The term "significant exposure" is defined in subsection (g) of Code section
17-10-15 as follows: contact of the victim's ruptured or broken skin or mucous membranes with the blood or body fluids of the person arrested for such offense, other than tears, saliva, or perspiration of a magnitude that the Centers for Dise...
...res are needed to protect the health of our citizens, and it is the intention of the General Assembly to enact such measures in the exercise of its police powers in order to deal with AIDS and HIV infection. Discussion 1. Appellant asserts that OCGA §
17-10-15(b) violates the Fourth Amendment....
...Balancing the government's need to search against the intrusion occasioned by the search, we conclude that the government's interest outweighs the interest of the individual, and that, therefore, the search is reasonable: The testing procedure prescribed by OCGA §
17-10-15(b) is civil, not criminal, in *272 nature....
...se to believe that there was significant exposure to HIV can learn whether the person arrested for that crime is carrying the virus. The results cannot be used against the defendant in any criminal proceeding arising out of the alleged offense. OCGA §
17-10-15(h). Moreover, the test results are disclosed only to the victim, public health authorities, the court which ordered the test, and the penal institution in which the defendant is confined. OCGA §
17-10-15(f)....
...G., supra 701 A.2d at 1270 (medical experts believe that testing offender for HIV gives victim significant psychological benefits). 2. Pointing out that blood tests and the nonconsensual disclosure of HIV status infringe on privacy interests, see Skinner, supra at 616,
109 S.Ct. at 1412-1413, appellant asserts that OCGA §
17-10-15(b) is unconstitutional because it violates his right of privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this context, appellant argues that the statute does not serve a compelling state interest and was not narrowly drawn to accomplish its goal through the least intrusive means. As noted above, OCGA §
17-10-15(b) does serve a compelling state interestpreventing members of the public from exposure to HIV....
...State, supra at 1166. Moreover, "the statute does accomplish its objective through the least intrusive means, since blood tests are routine, and disclosure of the results is limited to the victim and public health authorities [and prison officials]." Id. 3. OCGA §
17-10-15(b) does not violate state and federal equal protection clauses....
...bears a rational relationship to the government interest of preventing the spread of HIV. People v. Adams, supra 173 Ill.Dec. at 611, 612, 597 N.E.2d at 585, 586. See also Benton v. State,
265 Ga. 648, 649(3),
461 S.E.2d 202 (1995). Conclusion OCGA §
17-10-15(b) does not violate the Fourth Amendment, the right of privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except SEARS, J., who concurs specially. SEARS, Justice, concurring specially. I believe that the compelling governmental interests served by OCGA §
17-10-15 justify *273 the intrusion into individual privacy rights [5] that results from compelled blood testing for the presence of HIV, so long as there is probable cause to believe that the victim of a crime was significantly exposed to a perpe...
...I write separately, however, to emphasize that the facts of this case failed to establish probable cause to believe that "significant exposure," as statutorily defined, occurred during the struggle between Detective Woods and appellant Adams. Thus, the superior court was not authorized under OCGA §
17-10-15 to compel Adams's submission to an HIV test, and the court's order that Adams be tested was erroneous....
...Because Adams has already been forced to submit to an HIV blood test, any challenge to the superior court's probable cause determination in this case is moot. However, the court's compelling of an HIV test, despite the lack of probable cause, highlights inherent dangers that lurk in OCGA §
17-10-15, and the potential for gross abuse of the statute....
...ve Woods testified that, "It possibly could. I mean when you're fighting somebody. If I told you it did [occur], I'd be lying, because I don't want to lie to anybody.... It could have. It could have mixed together. There's a possibility there." OCGA §
17-10-15(b) authorizes the superior court to compel one accused of a crime to submit to an HIV test, "upon a showing of probable cause ......
...On the mere chance that there had been blood-to-blood contact, and assuming that if it occurred, that contact was sufficient to transmit HIV, the superior court ordered that Adams's blood be withdrawn and tested. That action, I believe, was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and improper under OCGA §
17-10-15....
...Because the compelled HIV test has already been performed on Adams, challenges to the superior court's finding of probable cause in this case are moot. Nonetheless, the superior court's probable cause finding highlights an ominous danger inherent in OCGA §
17-10-15....
...Permitting the superior courts to force one accused of a crime to submit to an HIV blood test upon anything less than a showing that, based upon medical and scientific knowledge, there was a significant risk of HIV exposure during commission of the crime can only perpetuate that ignorance. OCGA §
17-10-15 does not sanction the testing for HIV of suspects who, like Adams, merely are bandaged or cut at the time of arrest....
...me. For these reasons, I emphasize that the superior court judges must view the statute's probable cause requirements in the strictest sense, and satisfy themselves that those requirements have been met before compelling an HIV blood test under OCGA §
17-10-15....
...[4] In nearly every case, HIV antibodies will appear within six months of exposure to the virus. See People v. J. G., 171 Misc.2d 440, 655 N.Y.S.2d 783, supra. [5] See Skinner v. Railway Labor Execs. Assoc.,
489 U.S. 602,
109 S.Ct. 1402,
103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989). [6] OCGA §
17-10-15(g)....
