Blocker v. Martin

1994 OK 17, 868 P.2d 1316, 65 O.B.A.J. 958, 1994 Okla. LEXIS 17, 1994 WL 34032
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 3, 1994
Docket82664
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1994 OK 17 (Blocker v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blocker v. Martin, 1994 OK 17, 868 P.2d 1316, 65 O.B.A.J. 958, 1994 Okla. LEXIS 17, 1994 WL 34032 (Okla. 1994).

Opinion

ORDER

On consideration of the paperwork on file, the court finds and orders as follows:

(1) It takes original cognizance of this cause to decide the single question (presented by the petitioner) whether a due process hearing is required by our constitution, Art. 2 § 7, OKL. CONST., 1 before an order “directing blood tests to determine paternity” may issue. 10 O.S.1991 § 77.1.

(2) The question whose tender we accept today is answered in the affirmative.

■ (3) An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty or property be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 656, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). A person’s corporal integrity is protected from inappropriate state-compelled deliberate intrusions to secure withdrawal of vital fluids for evidence purposes. Rochin v. People of California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952); Schmerber v. State of California, 384 U.S. 757, 770, 86 S.Ct. 1826,1835,16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); see also, Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., — U.S.-,-ft. 10, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 1069, ft. 10, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992).

(4) When the provisions of Section 77.1 are invoked to secure an order compelling a blood test, a predeprivation hearing is the putative father’s constitutional due. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Bell v. Bur-son, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971).

(5) The November 18, 1993 blood test order of the district court is hence unenforceable as constitutionally infirm.

(6) This court’s order leaves the respondent-judge free to hear and determine the

*1317 quest for a blood test in a manner consistent with the minimum standards of due process,

(7) By this order the court corrects and releases for official publication its February 1, 1994 disposition herein.

SIMMS, HARGRAVE, OPALA, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. HODGES, C.J., LAVENDER, V.C.J., ALMA WILSON and WATT, JJ., dissent.
1

. Art. 2, § 7, OKL. CONST., provides that: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Arkansas Valley State Bank v. Phillips
2007 OK 78 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2007)
Corman v. H-30 Drilling, Inc.
2001 OK 92 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1994 OK 17, 868 P.2d 1316, 65 O.B.A.J. 958, 1994 Okla. LEXIS 17, 1994 WL 34032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blocker-v-martin-okla-1994.