## Facts

- Johnetta J. was charged with felony assault on a peace officer after a courtroom disturbance in which a sheriff’s deputy attempted to remove her.
- During the struggle, Johnetta bit the deputy’s arm, breaking the skin and drawing blood.
- The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department requested an order compelling Johnetta to submit to an HIV antibody blood test under Proposition 96 (then codified in the Penal Code).
- The department conceded it had no particularized basis to believe Johnetta was HIV-positive.
- A physician reported no visible blood in Johnetta’s mouth, but stated the deep puncture wound and saliva transfer made transmission “theoretically possible.”
- Experts testified there were no documented cases of HIV transmission by saliva or biting; some opined there was no reason to think bites transmit HIV; another opined the risk was low but not provably impossible.
- The municipal court granted the request and ordered the HIV blood test; Johnetta sought a writ of prohibition to stop enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether compelled HIV blood testing of a criminal defendant under Proposition 96, without individualized suspicion of infection, is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and California Constitution article I, section 13.
2. Whether a bite that breaks the skin and transfers saliva satisfies Proposition 96’s statutory “exposure” requirement for mandatory HIV testing.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal denied the writ petition and allowed enforcement of the municipal court’s order.
- The court held the compelled blood test was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution when balanced against governmental interests, even absent probable cause that the defendant was HIV-infected.
- The court held Proposition 96’s statutory prerequisites were met because the deputy suffered an exposure event (a skin-breaking bite with saliva transfer) supported by evidence that transmission was at least theoretically possible.
- The court relied on the limited nature of the intrusion (a single medically performed blood draw) and statutory confidentiality and use restrictions as important safeguards.

## Legal Principles

- A compelled blood draw is a search governed by the Fourth Amendment and California Constitution article I, section 13, and is assessed for reasonableness by weighing the intrusion against governmental interests and surrounding circumstances.
- For non-evidentiary public health and safety objectives, a balancing approach may justify a bodily-intrusion search without traditional probable cause that the test will reveal incriminating evidence.
- Governmental interests in protecting peace officers and other exposed persons from serious infectious disease risks and related fear and uncertainty can justify compelled testing when tied to an objective exposure event.
- Statutory confidentiality and limits on dissemination and use of test results reduce privacy impacts and support reasonableness.
- Proposition 96 does not require proof that transmission is likely; an exposure event creating a medically recognized, non-trivial risk—though low—may be sufficient to trigger testing authority.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a municipal court order compelling HIV blood testing of an assault defendant after a skin-breaking bite of a deputy, concluding that Proposition 96 authorized testing based on the exposure event and that the limited, safeguarded blood draw was a reasonable search despite the absence of individualized suspicion that the defendant was infected.


Johnetta J. v. Municipal Court, 218 Cal. App. 3d 1255, 267 Cal. Rptr. 666 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)