Johnetta J. v. Municipal Court for San Francisco Judicial District3/20/1990
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE
No. A045336
1990.CA.40984 ; 218 Cal. App. 3d 1255; 267 Cal. Rptr. 666
March 20, 1990
JOHNETTA J., PETITIONER,
v.
THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, RESPONDENT; SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
Jeff Brown, Public Defender, Peter G. Keane, Grace Lidia Suarez, William Heckman and Ron Albers, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner.
Rochelle D. Alpert, Kathleen V. Fisher, Ruth N. Borenstein, Frank A. McGuire, Maia Ettinger, Morrison & Foerster, Matthew A. Coles, Margaret C. Crosby, Alan L. Schlosser, Edward M. Chen, John Davidson and Paul Hoffman as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Louise H. Renne, City Attorney, Burk E. Deleventhal, Randy Riddle and Paula Jesson, Deputy City Attorneys, and James F. Harrigan for Real Party In Interest.
Opinion by Haning, J., with Low, P. J., and King, J., concurring.
Haning
Introduction
Proposition 96 was enacted by the voters in the November 1988 general election. In this case we decide constitutional challenges to the initiative's major component, which provides for mandatory Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) blood testing for persons charged with interfering with the official duties of public safety employees when there is probable cause to believe the person's bodily fluids have mingled with those of the employee . We shall conclude that under the circumstances here presented -- when such a person's saliva is transmitted to a public safety employee by means of a subcutaneous bite -- the Proposition 96 blood testing scheme withstands constitutional challenges provided the nondisclosure provisions of the statute are strictly enforced.
Petitioner Johnetta J. seeks a writ of prohibition restraining respondent San Francisco Municipal Court from enforcing an order that petitioner submit to blood testing pursuant to Proposition 96, at the request of real party in interest San Francisco Sheriff's Department. Petitioner contends the mandatory testing scheme amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure (U.S. Const., Amendment IV; Cal. Const., art. I, § 3), and violates her right of privacy under the state constitution. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.) We have previously denied a stay of the test, and petitioner has submitted to the order. We have nevertheless chosen to decide the technically moot petition on its merits, because it raises questions of statewide concern. (Sonoma County Nuclear Free Zone '86 v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 167 [234 Cal. Rptr. 357].)
Facts
Petitioner allegedly became disruptive while attending a child dependency hearing in San Francisco Superior Court, and her conduct required her physical removal from the courtroom by the bailiff, a San Francisco sheriff's deputy. Petitioner became violent and assaulted the deputy, inflicting a deep bite on the deputy's arm which penetrated the skin and drew blood. As a result of the fracas, a complaint was filed in respondent court charging petitioner with felony assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)), felony assault on a peace officer (Pen.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|