State v. Meacham, 46084
| Decision Date | 19 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 46084,46084 |
| Citation | 93 Wn.2d 735,612 P.2d 795 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, and Audree Lee Bundy and Aldera Emilee Bundy, Statutory Parties, v. Michael O'Neal MEACHAM, Appellant. The STATE of Washington, Respondent, and Julie Ann Amdal and Jody Elizabeth Amdal, Statutory Parties, v. Richard L. WATSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Jordan, Brinster, Templemen & Jordan, P. S., Timothy P. Ryan, Everett, Robert H. Stevenson, Seattle, for appellant.
Russ Juckett, Pros. Atty., Randall W. Yates, Hugh W. Hawkins, Jr. and Daniel Radin, Deputy Pros. Attys., Everett, for respondent.
These cases consolidated on appeal arise from actions brought under RCW 26.26, this state's version of the Uniform Law Commission's Uniform Parentage Act. 1 Each appellant, a putative father, was ordered to submit to the withdrawal of a small amount of his blood for testing. Each objected on similar constitutional grounds, and took an interlocutory appeal to this court. We affirm the trial court in each case and remand for further proceedings.
The State of Washington initiated separate proceedings under RCW 26.26 to establish Meacham and Watson as the fathers of two children born out of wedlock to different mothers. Under RCW 26.26.100, the State in each case applied to the trial court for an order requiring the putative father, the mother, and the child to submit to the withdrawal of small amounts of blood to be sent to a qualified expert for testing.
Both men resisted the State's proposal, each asserting substantially the same grounds. Each objected that a compulsory blood test would violate his constitutional rights to personal privacy, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and freedom of religion.
After full adversary hearings, the trial court in each case ruled that RCW 26.26.100 was constitutional and issued an order requiring the alleged father to submit to the withdrawal of blood. Appeal to this court followed under RAP 4.2. 2
RCW 26.26.100 provides in pertinent part:
(1) The court may, and upon request of a party shall, require the child, mother, or alleged father to submit to blood tests. The tests shall be performed by an expert qualified as an examiner of blood types, appointed by the court.
Here, in each case the trial court appointed a nationally recognized expert, R. Ben Dawson, M.D., of Baltimore, Maryland, to perform the blood tests. The trial court's order provided that the "expert shall perform tests, including but not limited to the Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA), on said blood samples . . ." The reliability of the HLA test as an indicator of parentage is high. The test has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and the Section on Family Law of the American Bar Association for use in parentage proceedings. See Joint AMA-ABA Guidelines: Present Status of Serologic Testing in Problems of Disputed Parentage, 10 Family L.Q. 247 (1976).
The constitutional objections raised in these cases, right of privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and freedom of religion do not preclude the trial court from ordering the withdrawal of a small amount of blood from the alleged fathers for testing. The intrusion by the State is minimal in each instance and the State's interest in accurately determining the parentage of the children concerned is compelling. That the interest of the State in the welfare of its minor children has long been a compelling and paramount concern, see Heney v. Heney, 24 Wash.2d 445, 165 P.2d 864 (1946); State v. Coffey, 77 Wash.2d 630, 465 P.2d 665 (1970); State v. Bowen, 80 Wash.2d 808, 498 P.2d 877 (1972); State v. Wood, 89 Wash.2d 97, 569 P.2d 1148 (1977).
The right to privacy, to be let alone, while fundamental and personal in nature, is not absolute. The state may reasonably regulate this right to safeguard society or where it otherwise has a compelling interest. Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 97 S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977).
Here, the State has a compelling interest in fixing the parentage of a minor child. The test specified to be used is highly reliable. No other evidence that is at all comparable in effectiveness is available to the State. The pain inflicted when blood is withdrawn by an experienced technician is inconsequential. And, any hazard to health is virtually nonexistent.
While RCW 26.26.100 provides that a court may, and upon request of a party shall, require the alleged father to submit to blood tests, no preemptory order was entered by the trial court in either of these cases. Rather, in each instance an adversary hearing was conducted by the trial court before it determined to enter an order requiring the blood test. Because this is a matter of first impression, the State did not resist appellants' interlocutory appeals to test the constitutionality of the blood test requirement under RCW 26.26, the State's Uniform Parentage Act. We hold that the requirement to submit to the withdrawal of blood is not susceptible to a right of privacy challenge in either of these cases.
In addition to the issue of privacy, appellants challenge the order to submit to blood withdrawal on grounds that it constitutes an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. We reject that contention out of hand.
Court ordered blood tests are undoubtedly "searches" within the meaning of the constitution. The Fourth Amendment proscription, however, is directed only to those searches which are unreasonable. An unreasonable search is one unjustified by the circumstances or carried out in an improper manner. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966).
For example, in Schmerber, a blood sample was taken over the objections of a criminal defendant. An informed, deliberate decision was made to order the test. Because of the state's interest in deterring driving while under the influence of alcohol and the relatively inoffensive nature of a properly conducted blood test, the taking of the defendant's blood in a hospital setting was not deemed to be an unreasonable search.
As noted above, orders requiring submission for blood withdrawal in these cases were not entered until after full adversary hearings. Here, the search does not resemble Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952), where violence and substantial bodily intrusion was involved (stomach forcibly pumped to seize swallowed narcotics). These cases more nearly comport with Schmerber. We hold the orders for the withdrawal of blood to be reasonable under the circumstances.
Finally, appellants each contend that requiring them to submit to the withdrawal of a small amount of blood unconstitutionally impinges on their right to freedom of religion under the First Amendment. Appellant Watson does not inform us how the withdrawal of a small amount of his blood infringes upon his religious belief. He simply asserts that it would. Appellant Meacham, on the other hand, equates the withdrawal of blood from the body with the transfusion of blood into the body. In any event, the State concedes the legitimacy of the beliefs. In its memorandum regarding the appealability of the trial court order requiring the withdrawal of blood, the prosecutor stated, "(t)he State of Washington, by and through the Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, does not question the sincerity of (appellant's) beliefs."
The position taken by the prosecuting attorney and by the trial court was that, regardless of appellants' religious beliefs, the rights of the children in question prevail over the rights of the alleged fathers when these rights come in conflict as they have here. We agree.
First Amendment religious freedom embraces two concepts: freedom to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Beausoleil
...Fourth and Fifth Amendments provide no grounds for prohibiting court ordered HLA and red blood cell testing. 22 See State v. Meacham, 93 Wash.2d 735, 612 P.2d 795 (1980) (court rejected right to privacy and Fourth Amendment challenges to court-ordered HLA testing); Albany County Dep't of So......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...to intervene in such proceedings, and hence to expend state monies, to protect several compelling interests. State v. Meacham, 93 Wash.2d 735, 741, 612 P.2d 795 (1980); State v. Wood, 89 Wash.2d 97, 102, 569 P.2d 1148 (1977). Those compelling interests include safeguarding the child's const......
-
State v. Balzer, 21805-4-II
...have also found compelling interests overriding religious free exercise in a number of other situations. See e.g.,State v. Meacham, 93 Wash.2d 735, 612 P.2d 795 (1980) (State has a compelling interest in requiring blood tests for putative fathers, under the Uniform Parentage Act, although p......
-
State v. Farmer
...In re Schuoler, 106 Wash.2d 500, 506-07, 723 P.2d 1103 (1986); In re Colyer, 99 Wash.2d at 120, 660 P.2d 738; State v. Meacham, 93 Wash.2d 735, 738, 612 P.2d 795 (1980). This right to privacy is not absolute in nature. See In re Schuoler, 106 Wash.2d at 508, 723 P.2d 1103; State v. Meacham,......