State v. Handy
Supreme Court of Vermont
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
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- O'CONNOR v. OrtegaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Ferguson v. City of CharlestonSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- In Re Juveniles A, B, C, D, EWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. BerardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1990
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. MedinaSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014
- State v. BemerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2021
- State v. BreedSupreme Court of Vermont · 2015
- State v. BreedSupreme Court of Vermont · 2015
- State v. HandySupreme Court of Vermont · 2012