 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. Mauney4/7/1992
istered by police in the privacy of the stationhouse." Id. at 771-72, 16 L. Ed. 2d. at 920.
The statute at issue in the instant case, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-50.1(a), provides, in relevant part:
In the trial of any criminal action or proceeding in any court in which the question of parentage arises . . . the court before whom the matter may be brought, upon motion of the
State or the defendant, shall order that the alleged-parent defendant, the known natural parent, and the child submit to any blood tests and comparisons which have been developed and adapted for purposes of establishing or disproving parentage and which are reasonably accessible to the alleged-parent defendant, the known natural parent, and the child.
Id. The order in question in this case directs defendant "to submit to Red Cell, HLA and any other blood-grouping tests and comparisons which have been developed and adapted for purposes of establishing or disproving parentage," with the blood to be withdrawn by a phlebotomist at the Caldwell County Health Department.
We find that neither the order directing defendant to submit to blood tests nor section 8-50.1 of the General Statutes violate defendant's constitutional rights to due process and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of his person. As stated by the United States Supreme Court, blood tests are commonplace in our society. Section 8-50.1 authorizes such testing only upon motion made by either the State or the defendant, and the court involved in the matter must order the test. The statute and order in question do not authorize the "indiscriminate taking of blood" as warned by the Breithaupt Court nor do they allow the performance of a blood test by anyone other than a trained technician or anywhere other than a medical facility as cautioned by the Schmerber Court. We, therefore, find that the order and the challenged statute are free from constitutional infirmities and overrule defendant's assignment of error.
No error.
Judges Arnold and Lewis concur.
Disposition
No error.
|