{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019394512771996216, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.409090909090909, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Selected Recent Court Decisions

AIDS: Constitutionality of Mandatory HIV Testing of Convicted Prostitutes — Illinois v. Adams — The Supreme Court of Illinois upheld the constitutionality of a state statute that requires a person convicted of prostitution to submit to a mandatory HIV test. In so holding, the court rejected the trial court's conclusion that the statute constituted an illegal search and seizure and denied the defendants equal protection. This decision affirms the ability of states to selectively subject politically vulnerable societal groups to HIV testing. The defendants were convicted of prostitution and ordered to undergo HIV testing pursuant to Illinois law. The law requires any defendant convicted of prostitution, soliciting for a prostitute, soliciting for a juvenile prostitute, pandering, keeping a place of prostitution, patronizing a prostitute, pimping, juvenile pimping, exploitation of a child, criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual abuse, or aggravated criminal sexual abuse to submit to mandatory testing for HIV infection. The results of the test are disclosed to the judge, who has discretion to determine "to whom, if anyone, the results of the testing may be revealed." The defendants claimed that the testing requirement constituted an invalid search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment and denied the defendants equal protection of the laws. At the outset, the court limited its holding to the statute's requirement that persons convicted of prostitution must undergo HIV testing, saving review of the constitutionality of HIV testing after conviction of the other enumerated offenses for a later date. The defendants argued that compelled HIV testing implicates the Fourth Amendment in two ways: the drawing of a blood sample is a physical intrusion and the testing of the blood sample is an invasion of the defendants' privacy. In assessing the reasonableness of this intrusion, the court found that the challenged statute serves a compelling state interest—the protection and promotion of the public health. Thus,