Legal Opinion

State v. Handy

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 23, 2012No. 2010-399PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

¶ 1. Following defendant’s conviction for a sex offense, the superior court, criminal division, granted the State’s motion to compel defendant to submit to testing for sexually transmitted diseases under the authority of 13 V.S.A. § 3256, which does not require probable cause or a warrant for testing. On appeal, defendant argues that the statute is unconstitutional because it does not serve any special need beyond law enforcement justifying abandonment of the normal probable-cause and warrant requirements and because, even if such a special need were present, the governmental goals advanced…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. O'CONNOR v. OrtegaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Ferguson v. City of CharlestonSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  4. In Re Juveniles A, B, C, D, EWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  5. State v. BerardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1990

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. MedinaSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014
  2. State v. BemerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2021
  3. State v. BreedSupreme Court of Vermont · 2015
  4. State v. BreedSupreme Court of Vermont · 2015
  5. State v. HandySupreme Court of Vermont · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API