## Facts

- Jay S. Handy, Sr. was convicted in November 2009 of lewd or lascivious conduct under 13 V.S.A. § 2601 based on nonconsensual sexual intercourse occurring on October 28, 2007.
- The conduct qualified as a sexual act creating a risk of exposing the victim to HIV/AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
- In March 2010, the victim requested that the State seek an order under 13 V.S.A. § 3256 compelling Handy to undergo HIV/STD testing; the statute authorizes testing without a warrant or probable cause.
- The State moved in the criminal division for an order compelling testing; Handy opposed, arguing the statute was unconstitutional as applied because it authorized a warrantless search lacking a valid special need beyond law enforcement and because the intrusion outweighed his privacy and bodily integrity interests.
- After a brief nonevidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion despite the nearly three-year gap since the assault, ordered testing, limited disclosure of results to Handy and the victim, and sealed the results and related record.
- Handy appealed on Fourth Amendment and Vermont constitutional grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether compelled HIV/STD testing of a convicted sex offender under 13 V.S.A. § 3256, without a warrant or probable cause, is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and the Vermont Constitution.
2. Whether the State’s and victim’s health-related interests constitute a special need beyond ordinary law enforcement and, if so, whether those interests outweigh the defendant’s privacy and bodily integrity interests given the time delay.
3. Whether the order must further restrict the victim’s ability to disclose the defendant’s test results to avoid an unreasonable invasion of privacy.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the order compelling Handy to submit to HIV/STD testing.
- The court held that the compelled testing is a search, but is reasonable under the special-needs doctrine because it serves a health-related purpose beyond ordinary law enforcement and satisfies a balancing test.
- The court rejected the argument that the nearly three-year delay made the testing unreasonable; it found the information could still inform the victim’s medical decisionmaking.
- The court remanded for the trial court to impose additional restrictions on the victim’s disclosure of the defendant’s test results.

## Legal Principles

- Compelled blood or bodily-fluid testing for HIV/STDs is a “search” subject to Fourth Amendment and analogous state-constitutional scrutiny.
- Under the special-needs doctrine, a warrantless, suspicionless search may be reasonable when it serves needs beyond ordinary law enforcement and is justified by a balancing of interests.
- Victim health and safety—providing information that guides testing, treatment, counseling, and risk assessment—can constitute a special need supporting compelled testing after conviction for qualifying sexual offenses.
- Reasonableness depends in part on limiting features, including narrow applicability tied to risk-creating sexual offenses, nonuse of results in criminal proceedings against the defendant, sealing of records, and restrictions on dissemination of medical information.
- Even when testing is constitutional, disclosure conditions may require tailoring to prevent an undue invasion of the defendant’s medical privacy.

## Conclusion

The court upheld post-conviction compelled HIV/STD testing requested by a sexual-assault victim as a reasonable warrantless search supported by a special need beyond law enforcement, but required further limits on victim disclosure of results to maintain privacy protections.


State v. Handy, 44 A.3d 776 (Vt. 2012)