Steven Farmer Case File Size 128 lines Article Reprinted here for public posting by permisson of Gail Scott Seattle Times Contact Gail Scott at the Seattle Times at 206-464-2200 to reprint the entire article as is. ------- When officials cater to public fear of AIDS The Seattle Times Thursday February 28, 1991 ------- Steve Farmer has long disappeared from front-page news, but a state Supreme Court decision on his criminal case issued two weeks ago will affect privacy law and AIDS testing in this state for a long time. Farmer doesn't attract easy sympathy, yet tests of civil liberties often arise out of unsavory cases. The court ruled that Farmer's constitutional right of privacy was violated when he was tested for AIDS against his will in 1988 as part of a criminal sentencing. Strangely enough, Farmer won't benefit from the ruling. The court allowed his exceptional sentence for 71/2 years - supported in part by the illegal AIDS test - to stand. In July 1988, at the height of public panic over AIDS, Farmer was ordered by King County Superior Court Judge Charles Johnson to submit to a blood test for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. His test result - positive - was reported on the front page of both Seattle, newspapers and on evening news broadcasts. At the time, the public's worst fear was the "kamikaze" AIDS carrier, recklessly or even purposely spreading the disease. Farmer seemed to fit the bill. He had been convicted of two counts of patronizing a juvenile prostitute and two counts of sexual exploitation for taking nude pictures of a minor. The two street kids he picked up in the early 1987 were 16 years old. The crimes were wretched, but common. After the prosecutors office received an anonymous tip from a doctor saying Farmer tested positive for the virus, the case was no longer a run-of-mill sex violation. The public disclosure transformed Farmer into a walking AIDS nightmare. In early 1988, the Legislature had passed an omnibus AIDS law to ensure privacy on HIV tests, encourage education and counseling, and establish public-health procedures on AIDS. The law guarantees that no person may be forced to take an AIDS blood test without that person's consent. There are a few exceptions, such as tests in when consent is given the guardian of an incompetent person. The statute also allows post- sentencing testing for persons convicted of sex cremes or drug offenses associated with hypodermic needles. None of the exceptions applied to Farmer (he had not been sentenced yet), but judge Johnson ordered a test anyway. The senior deputy prosecutor on the case, Rebeccca Roe, wanted use Farmer's possible AIDS infections an aggravating factor to lengthen his criminal sentence, employing a theory of deliberate cruelty in transmitting the virus. She had two witnesses who said Farmer had told them he tested positive for the virus in 1983. The fact that there was no HIV blood test until 1985 made the accounts rather dubious. To corroborate their statements, Roe requested that Farmer be tested - even though a positive result would not prove he had the virus at the time of the crimes, much less that he knew about it. The test was useful only to fan hysteria which it did quite well. Fortunately, the state Supreme Court can reason better then Johnson. It ruled that the HIV test did not corroborate anything since it does not relate back in time. Therefore, the test served no compelling state interest and violated Farmer's privacy rights. The court, however ,upheld Farmer's exceptional sentence of 90 months - more than double the standard sentence of 31 to 41 months for his crimes. It figured Johnson would have imposed an extra-long sentence based on the witnesses statement alone. If that were true, why did Jonson feel compelled to order the test? Clearly, the positive test result affect the sentence given. The result is that Farmer wins on principle but loses in years. He faces the kind of time usually imposed for repeat violent offenses. His health is weakened, and he'll be lucky if he outlive his term. Farmer's case is one ignominious example of how overeager public officials, catering to a fearful public, mishandle AIDS. Now the same irrational response is behind calls for HIV testing of suspects in sex crimes (tossing the presumption of innocence out the window), and forcing doctors and health-care workers who might have the virus to disclose their condition. AIDS will not be contained by punishment, much as we'd like to believe that harsher laws and longer criminal sentences will stop a diseases spread. Since the beginning of the AIDS crisis, public-health experts have preached voluntary testing, education, and privacy protection for those who seek testing and treatment. Penalizing the disease - as the state did with Farmer - only encourages deliberate ignorance. Who would want to be tested when knowledge of test results could be used against them? ^^^^^^^