The U.S. Constitution provides protection for " a well established ‘ zone of privacy,’ [including] one's sexual relations." County of Ramsey v. S.M.F., 298 N.W.2d 40, 42 (Minn.1980); Fults v. Superior Court, 88 Cal.App.3d 899, 904, 152 Cal.Rptr. 210, 213 (1979), citing inter alia,Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972). In Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 239 N.W.2d 905 (1976), the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized this " zone of privacy" by holding that " an intrusion into the right of privacy can only be justified by a legitimate and important state interest, and even then the intrusion must be by the least intrusive means."
1979). A year later in County of Ramsey v. S.M.F., 298 N.W.2d 40, 44 (Minn. 1980), we stressed that blood tests were to be administered in paternity actions as early as possible in the litigation, noting that it was not sensible to rely any longer solely on other kinds of less reliable evidence. Moreover, subdivision 5 also provides that child support can only be ordered on motion after a hearing.
The court could have ordered the State, which desired blood tests after St. John did not take them, to advance the costs of the tests, subject to final taxation against St. John as costs if he lost on the merits. See County of Ramsey v. S.M.F., 298 N.W.2d 40, 44 (Minn. 1980); § 675.41, The Code 1981 (effective January 1, 1981).
Jan. 30, 1992). Rather, by requiring blood tests if requested by an alleged father who states sufficient facts to establish the possibility of paternity, the statute incorporates a relatively low threshold that accords with the policy of utilizing blood tests in all paternity actions. See County of Ramsey v. S.M.F., 298 N.W.2d 40, 44 (Minn. 1980) (stating that "[w]e can imagine no situation in which it would not be in the interest of [the parties to a paternity action] to have blood tests taken."). Our decision here is entirely consistent with the result reached in Witso v. Overby, 627 N.W.2d 63 (Minn. 2001).
A three month period before and after the alleged sexual act is not too remote. Compare County of Ramsey v. S.M.F., 298 N.W.2d 40, 42 (Minn. 1980) (interrogatories asking for information regarding sexual activity over a 5-year period were too broad). V
We, therefore, hold that henceforth, an order for submission to blood grouping tests to determine paternity may not require any indigent party to pay any portion of the compensation of the appointed expert(s) as a condition precedent to the administration of the tests.Accord Michael B. v. The Superior Court of Stanislaus County, 86 Cal.App.3rd 1006, 1010, 150 Cal.Rptr. 586, 589 (5th Dist. 1978) (court cannot order prepayment of blood tests by indigent defendant in a civil paternity suit, but rather, must order that compensation of experts conducting the tests be initially paid by the county subject to being later taxable to the parties as costs in the action); County of Ramsey v. S.M.F., Minn., 298 N.W.2d 40, 44 (1980) (preferable practice would be for county to ask putative father to take blood tests at county expense). Order reversed and case remanded for disposition in accordance with this opinion.
Recent cases which allowed blood tests for the purpose of establishing nonpaternity include: Winston v. Robinson, 270 Ark. 996, 1000-01, 606 S.W.2d 757, 760 (1980); People v. Askew, 74 Ill. App.3d 743, 747, 393 N.E.2d 1124, 1128 (1979); McGowan v. Poche, 393 So.2d 278, 280 (La. Ct. App. 1980); Ramsey County v. S.M.F., 298 N.W.2d 40, 44 (Minn. 1980); State ex rel. Ortloff v. Hanson, 277 N.W.2d 205, 206 (Minn. 1979); Bunting v. Beacham, 45 N.C. App. 304, 306, 262 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1980); Hansen v. Hansen, 119 N.H. 473, 475, 402 A.2d 1333, 1334 (1979); Parenti v. Parenti, 263 Pa. Super. 282, 397 A.2d 1210 (1979); State v. Lawson, ___ W. Va. ___, ___, 267 S.E.2d 438, 439 (1980). Given the genotypes of a child and its mother, a scientist can state positively that men of certain blood types could not be the father.