Did Idaho's law requiring AIDS testing of incoming prisoners apply to existing inmates, and could prison officials keep an AIDS-positive prisoner quarantined past the end of their sentence?

Plain-English summary

The Director of the Idaho Department of Corrections asked the Attorney General four questions about how Idaho Code § 39-604 (a venereal-disease examination statute) applied to AIDS, given that the legislature had amended Idaho Code § 39-601 in 1986 to add AIDS, ARC, and HTLV-III to the list of statutorily-defined "venereal diseases."

Question 1: How extensive is the venereal-disease examination required of confined or imprisoned persons? The AG concluded it required a blood examination (an ELISA test) on every incoming inmate to detect AIDS. The statute's future-tense framing ("shall be confined or imprisoned") meant prospective application: testing was required for those entering detention going forward, not for those already incarcerated. Officials could still test current inmates at their discretion if they determined it necessary.

Question 2: Who paid for the examination and treatment? The state was responsible for medical costs incurred at state detention facilities. The opinion read § 39-604 against Idaho's general framework for medical care of state inmates.

Question 3: Did "isolation or quarantine" in § 39-604 cover AIDS, or only the diseases listed in § 39-603? The AG concluded it covered all venereal diseases listed in § 39-601, which after the 1986 amendment included AIDS. So AIDS-positive prisoners could be isolated or quarantined while serving their sentences if state health officials first determined that quarantine was necessary to protect public health.

Question 4: Could quarantine continue past the end of a person's sentence? Only with conditions. The AG concluded that prison officials could not continue to hold a person whose sentence had expired in quarantine unless other classes of AIDS-positive persons (those who had never been incarcerated) were subjected to similar quarantine. Singling out former prisoners would raise equal-protection problems. The AG noted that traditional quarantine doctrine had been upheld under the police power, but that contemporary courts subjected such regulations to constitutional scrutiny rather than presuming validity. The opinion observed that emerging constitutional doctrine made the analysis less predictable than it would have been a generation earlier.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Idaho Code § 39-604 dated to a much earlier era of public health law. It directed that "All persons who shall be confined or imprisoned in any state, county or city prison in this state shall be examined for and, if infected, treated for venereal diseases by the health authorities of the county or their deputies." The statute used future-tense language and was originally aimed at older venereal diseases (syphilis, gonorrhea, chancroid).

In 1986 the Idaho legislature amended § 39-601 to add AIDS, AIDS-related complexes (ARC), other manifestations of HTLV-III infection, and chancroid to the list of venereal diseases declared "contagious, infectious, communicable and dangerous to public health." The legislature did not amend § 39-604, leaving the AG to harmonize the new disease list with the existing examination statute.

The ELISA test was the only blood test then available to detect HIV antibodies. The AG noted it could be administered as part of routine intake.

The constitutional analysis recognized that traditional public health doctrine had upheld mandatory testing and quarantine under the police power, but that Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985) and other contemporary cases had moved courts toward substantive constitutional review. The AG predicted that quarantine that singled out a particular class (former prisoners with AIDS) would face equal-protection problems unless the state applied similar measures to all AIDS-positive persons.

Common questions

Did the law require AIDS testing of every Idaho prisoner?

Only incoming prisoners. Idaho Code § 39-604's future-tense phrasing meant prospective application. Officials retained discretion to test already-incarcerated prisoners if they determined it necessary, but the statute itself did not mandate it.

Who paid for the testing and treatment?

The state for prisoners in state facilities; counties and cities for prisoners in their facilities. The opinion treated the cost-allocation question as a function of which entity was running the facility.

Could AIDS-positive prisoners be isolated while serving their sentences?

Yes, if state health officials determined that isolation or quarantine was necessary to protect public health. The "isolation or quarantine" language in § 39-604 applied to all the venereal diseases listed in § 39-601, including the diseases added in 1986.

What about keeping AIDS-positive people in quarantine past the end of their sentences?

The AG concluded this was permissible only if Idaho applied the same quarantine policy to other AIDS-positive persons who had never been incarcerated. Singling out ex-prisoners would raise constitutional problems under equal protection.

Did older quarantine cases settle the constitutional question?

The AG was cautious. Traditional cases upheld quarantine under the police power with deferential review, but more recent constitutional doctrine subjected public-health regulations to substantive scrutiny. The opinion warned that the older permissive cases were not a reliable guide to how a 1987 court would assess mandatory testing and quarantine.

Citations

Idaho statutes: Idaho Code §§ 39-601, 39-603, 39-604.

Federal cases: Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985).

Other authority: Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Board v. Bowman, 249 Md. 705, 241 A.2d 714 (1955); A. Gray, The Parameters of Mandatory Public Health Measures and the AIDS Epidemic, 20 Suffolk L. Rev. 504 (1986); W. Parmet, AIDS and Quarantine: The Revival of an Archaic Doctrine, 14 Hofstra L. Rev. 53 (1985); Levine & Bayer, Screening Blood, Public Health and Medical Uncertainty, in AIDS: The Emerging Ethical Dilemmas, Hastings Center Rep., Aug. 1985.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/OP87-07.pdf

Original opinion text

Full opinion text is preserved in the linked PDF. The opinion analyzed four questions under Idaho Code § 39-604 (the prisoner venereal-disease examination statute) as amended in 1986 by adding AIDS, ARC, and HTLV-III to the venereal-disease definition in § 39-601: (1) the scope of required examination; (2) the entity responsible for cost; (3) whether the "isolation or quarantine" language reached AIDS-positive inmates; and (4) the constitutional limits on continuing quarantine past sentence expiration. The AG concluded testing was required for incoming inmates only, the state paid for state-facility costs, AIDS quarantine of inmates was permissible upon a public-health determination, and post-sentence quarantine required parallel treatment of non-prisoner AIDS cases to survive constitutional review.

DATED this 29th day of July, 1987.

JIM JONES
Attorney General
State of Idaho