State v. Handy
2012 VT 21, 191 Vt. 311, 44 A.3d 776 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute compelling a convicted sex offender to submit to a warrantless, suspicionless search for sexually transmitted diseases does not violate the state constitution if it serves a special need beyond normal law enforcement, such as providing psychological peace of mind to the victim, which outweighs the offender's diminished privacy interest, provided there are safeguards against public dissemination of the test results.
Facts:
- On October 28, 2007, the defendant had nonconsensual sexual intercourse with the victim in a public place.
- The defendant's sexual act created a risk of exposing the victim to sexually transmitted diseases, including the etiologic agent for AIDS.
- After the defendant was convicted for the offense, the victim requested that the defendant be tested for sexually transmitted diseases.
- The victim's request was made pursuant to a Vermont statute, 13 V.S.A. § 3256, that permits victims of certain sexual crimes to petition the court for an order compelling the convicted offender to undergo such testing.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was convicted of lewd or lascivious conduct in the Vermont superior court, criminal division.
- Following the conviction, the State, on behalf of the victim, filed a motion in the superior court to compel the defendant to submit to testing for sexually transmitted diseases under 13 V.S.A. § 3256.
- The superior court held a nonevidentiary hearing and granted the State's motion, concluding the statute was constitutional and it was compelled to order the testing.
- The superior court ordered that the test results be disclosed only to the defendant and the victim, and that the court records be sealed.
- Defendant (appellant) appealed the superior court's order to the Supreme Court of Vermont, challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Vermont statute (13 V.S.A. § 3256), which authorizes a court to compel a convicted sex offender to submit to testing for sexually transmitted diseases at the victim's request without a warrant or probable cause, violate the offender's right to be free from unreasonable searches under Article Eleven of the Vermont Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
No. The statute does not violate Article Eleven of the Vermont Constitution because it serves a special need beyond law enforcement that outweighs the offender's diminished privacy interests, provided the results are kept confidential. The court applied the two-part 'special needs' test. First, the statute serves a special need beyond normal law enforcement because its purpose is public health, not criminal prosecution, and requiring a warrant would be impracticable as STDs often show no outward signs. Second, this special need must be balanced against the defendant's privacy interests. A convicted sex offender has a greatly diminished privacy interest in their bodily fluids. While the physical intrusion of a test is minimal, the primary privacy concern is the stigma from public dissemination of a positive result. Although medical experts indicate the test has little direct medical benefit for the victim long after the assault, the court found a compelling state interest in providing the victim with psychological benefits and 'peace of mind.' This psychological benefit to a trauma victim outweighs the offender's diminished privacy interest, but only if the results are protected from public disclosure. Therefore, the case is remanded for the trial court to issue a protective order restricting the victim from disclosing the test results to anyone other than their medical providers or counselors.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Reiber, C.J.
This opinion concurs that the statute is constitutional but dissents from the majority's reasoning and remedy. The statute plainly serves the important government interest of supporting victims' medical and psychological health, which outweighs the offender's extremely limited privacy interest. The majority's extensive analysis of legislative history was unnecessary and an improper expansion of the judicial role, as the statute's purpose is clear on its face and the defendant offered no evidence to challenge it. Furthermore, the dissent argues against remanding for a protective order, contending the statute's existing confidentiality provisions—disclosing results only to the offender and victim and sealing all court records—are sufficient. The legislature did not prohibit the victim from sharing the information with a future partner, and the court should not impose policy choices that the legislature did not make.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the use of the 'special needs' doctrine to uphold warrantless, suspicionless searches in the public health context. It significantly establishes that a non-medical benefit, such as a crime victim's psychological 'peace of mind,' can qualify as a compelling governmental interest sufficient to justify such a search. The ruling demonstrates that courts may look beyond the direct scientific or medical utility of a measure to find its constitutional justification in its impact on mental and emotional well-being. However, the majority's remand for a stronger protective order underscores that the constitutionality of such searches is heavily contingent on robust privacy protections that prevent the public dissemination and resulting stigmatization from the information obtained.
