State v. Bemer
Citations
- 339 Conn. 528
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 54-102a (a)), a court presiding over a pending case involving a violation of certain sex offenses, including patronizing a prostitute who was the victim of human trafficking, may order that the accused be examined for any sexually transmitted disease (STD). Pursuant further to statute (§ 54-102a (b)), a court presiding over a pending case involving a violation of certain sex offenses during which a sexual act occurred, including patronizing a prostitute who was the victim of human trafficking, may order that the accused be tested for the presence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), ''[n]otwithstanding the provisions of'' the statute (§ 19a-582) requiring a person's ''general con- sent'' for that person's HIV-related testing. The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. 339 Conn. 528 NOVEMBER, 2021 529 State v. Bemer The defendant, who had been charged with the crimes of patronizing a prostitute who was the victim of human trafficking and conspiracy to commit trafficking in persons, appealed from the trial court's order, in response to motions filed by the state and certain of the defendant's alleged victims, requiring that he submit to an examination for STDs pursuant to § 54-102a (a) and HIV testing pursuant to § 54-102a (b). The charges stemmed from the defendant's involvement with a person who had arranged for young males to engage in sexual activities with the defendant in exchange for money. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court had abused its discretion in ordering HIV testing on the ground that the trial court was required to find, before issuing such an order, that there was a clear and imminent danger to the public health or the health of a person and that there was a compelling need for the HIV test result that could not be accommodated by other means, and the state presented no evidence in furtherance of satisfying that standard. The defend
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- when one statute explicitly referenced another, this court consid- ered provisions of each in tandem to determine plain meaning under § 1-2z analysis
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Vertefeuille
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. SharpeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-10-07· cited 5×
- GenConn Energy, LLC v. Public Utilities Regulatory AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-02-27· cited 4×
- Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-05-07· cited 2×
- State v. MaloneSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-05-10
Cites
54 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court· 1973-05-29· cited 11,783×
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 9,088×
- United States v. RobinsonSupreme Court· 1973-12-11· cited 3,538×
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court· 1989-03-21· cited 2,560×
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Von RaabSupreme Court· 1989-03-21· cited 1,188×
- Clark v. MartinezSupreme Court· 2005-01-12· cited 824×
- Dunn v. WhiteTenth Circuit· 1989-08-01· cited 765×
- Maryland v. KingSupreme Court· 2013-06-03· cited 671×
- Harris v. ThigpenEleventh Circuit· 1991-09-18· cited 556×
- Chandler v. MillerSupreme Court· 1997-04-15· cited 524×
- State v. GeislerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-06-18· cited 496×
- State v. CurcioSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1983-08-09· cited 442×
- State v. OquendoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-08-25· cited 219×
- State v. MarsalaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-08-07· cited 185×
- State v. DukesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-09-06· cited 152×
- State v. IndrisanoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-04-05· cited 150×
- Doe v. MarselleSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-05-07· cited 128×
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-08-24· cited 120×
- Andrew John Walker v. George W. SumnerNinth Circuit· 1990-10-22· cited 101×
- State v. FloydSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-01-08· cited 72×
Other cases named State v. Bemer
2 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.