Mandatory HIV or AIDs Testing?????

4th & 5th Amendments null and void in Arizona???

In this case the courts are ordering Christopher J. Wilson to submit to medical tests which can and will be used against him in court.

Source

Ex-Phoenix officer in sex case fighting HIV-test order

By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Feb 9, 2013 10:14 PM

It was almost an afterthought when a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ordered former Phoenix police Officer Christopher J. Wilson to submit to an HIV test while he awaited trial on allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor.

The law allowing judges to order such tests for defendants suspected of certain crimes has been in place for about 20 years, and they are routinely submitted without legal challenges.

But Wilson chose to fight it. His first challenge was rejected in Superior Court, but his attorney, Robert Campos, said he plans to file an appeal with the Arizona Supreme Court, arguing that forcing Wilson to submit to the test without an evidentiary hearing amounts to a violation of his client’s constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

“My argument to the judge was, I think we need a hearing, just like we have lots of hearings on motions to suppress. ... I was saying, ‘Based on the charges alone, you don’t have enough facts to support this request that there was significant exposure,’” Campos said.

The County Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the case because of the pending legal action.

The law came about in the mid-1990s during a time when the justice system was increasingly focused on victims’ rights.

Though the HIV-testing statute was not a part of Arizona’s voter-approved Victims’ Bill of Rights, the statute was added shortly thereafter as a way to ensure victims of sex crimes would not be further harmed by unknowingly carrying a disease or infection, said former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, whose tenure coincided with the increased awareness of victims’ rights.

Wilson, 44, was indicted last year on 10 counts of sexual conduct with a minor, including four that were classified as dangerous crimes against children because of the victim’s age.

Wilson allegedly performed sex acts on two boys and participated in a sexual act with the 14- and 17-year-old together at the older boy’s apartment, according to court documents.

Court records indicate that Wilson, a 13-year Phoenix police veteran who was serving as the department’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered liaison, admitted to the sexual contact during an interview with detectives after he was advised of his Miranda rights.

Arizona’s law allows a judge to order defendants suspected of committing sexual offenses to submit to tests for sexually transmitted infections and HIV, or for the prosecutor to request the tests on behalf of victims.

The law also outlines what constitutes a sexual offense — Wilson’s alleged conduct qualifies — and details “significant exposure,” to include blood and bodily fluids “other than tears, saliva or perspiration” at a level scientists have shown allow for the transmission of infections.

Ron Reinstein, retired Superior Court judge and former prosecutor who once headed the county attorney’s sex-crimes division, said the court orders were not often challenged during his time on the bench, but when they were, the rulings had a common theme.

“The objection was it was an invasion of privacy, kind of like drawing blood. But I think every single time that this came up the decision was, ‘This is not usable in a criminal case,’” Reinstein recalled, noting that the orders are not meant to punish the suspect, and only the health department, victim and suspect should be aware of the results.

“It’s more ameliorative for the victim, and, in a way, also for the defendant who might not have known that they have it,” he said.

Just about every other state has similar laws, with variations on who can request the tests and the length of time charges must be pending before a suspect can be ordered to submit to the test.

There have been challenges in other states, too, largely along the same legal lines. A similar law was enacted in Utah in 2011 despite the protests of the American Civil Liberties Union there, which argued that the test could provide faulty information — and false hope — to an assault victim whose actual attacker was not the person police had in custody.

The group also argued the tests would subject defendants to loss of privacy and stigmatization.

Campos, Wilson’s attorney, said he plans to file the appeal following a hearing scheduled for later this month and is well aware of the arguments and case law working against him.

But the required testing has much in common with a case the U.S. Supreme Court will take up about mandatory DNA testing for suspects, both of which raise questions about what comes of the information if those suspects are later acquitted, he said.

Campos has no issue with post-conviction tests, but he said there is no need to rush a suspect to submit to the procedure.

“Peace of mind of the victim should not trump a citizen’s right to be presumed innocent and not have to be forced to STD testing,” he said. “Our system is moving towards a real presumption of guilt until proven innocent. Upon arrest, defendants are being tested and cataloged. Nothing is done to expunge the record if you are found innocent. This is why I think it important to fight the testing on behalf of my client.”