An Act to repeal 968.38 (5) (a) and 968.38 (5) (b); to renumber 968.38 (1) (a); to amend 146.81 (4), 252.11 (5m), 252.15 (2m) (b) 3., 252.15 (3m) (d) 14., 252.15 (4) (c), 901.05 (3), 968.38 (2m) (intro.), 968.38 (2m) (a), 968.38 (2m) (b), 968.38 (5) (intro.) and 968.38 (5) (c); to create 968.38 (1) (ag), 968.38 (1) (br), 968.38 (1) (bv), 968.38 (2s), 968.38 (5) (am), 968.38 (5) (bm), 968.38 (6) and 973.20 (4r) of the statutes; Relating to: emergency testing of a criminal defendant for certain diseases. (FE)
Impact
The legislation would significantly alter the process for obtaining court orders related to disease testing in the context of criminal justice. Now, the district attorney can seek a waiver of the standard hearing requirements to expedite testing, which is argued to prevent potential bodily harm from delays in diagnosis. Furthermore, once a defendant is convicted, they would be mandated to pay restitution for the costs associated with any court-ordered testing, thus placing the financial burden on the accused rather than the state.
Summary
Senate Bill 419 proposes amendments to existing legislation concerning the emergency testing of criminal defendants for certain communicable diseases. This bill modifies current procedures that apply only to specific offenses against public safety workers or those in correctional facilities by broadening the scope to include any crime if there is suspected risk of disease transmission. The aim here is to enhance the protection of public safety personnel, prosecutors, and correctional staff by allowing immediate testing when there is probable cause that bodily fluids capable of transmitting diseases were involved in the alleged crime.
Contention
There are notable points of contention surrounding SB 419, particularly concerning the balance between public health and the rights of defendants. Critics might argue that the expedited process could infringe upon due process rights, as defendants may be compelled to undergo testing without full scrutiny. Moreover, the requirement for defendants to bear the costs could raise concerns about fairness, especially for those unable to pay such restitution due to situations surrounding their alleged offenses. Overall, while the bill aims to protect public safety workers, the implications for individual rights and judicial procedures warrant careful examination.