Originally Posted by
CDTraveler
If you're referring to the Kaci Hickox case against the state of New Jersey, according to her lawyer, the outcome was "Under the settlement, anyone quarantined in New Jersey can contest the order and has the rights to have legal counsel, to be given prior notice of any hearings and to send and receive communications. It also guarantees a person the right to privacy so long as it does not interfere with vital public health needs."
That doesn't mean the CDC can't forcibly quarantine anyone they believe to "to be infected witha communicable disease in aqualifying stage
."
Very interesting reading, thanks for the link. I guess the main question is what evidence does CDC needs to quanrantine someone? Going even further let says they do quarantine someone and that person refuses to be tested, what happens when habeas corpus petition is filed. CDC needs to present evidence that person is danger to others. They can't just say he refuse to be tested, so we going to quarantine . That would violates us constitution.
Originally Posted by
GUWonder
They could delay admitting the person and wait to cherry pick on something as a potential symptom of some public health threat and then latch on to that to mandate testing to see if quarantine/isolation is necessary or not. Some would perhaps call that a quarantine/isolation anyway.
Check this out:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33201.pdf
I do not believe you can be forced to undergo testing. Yes they can quarantine you but then we than get in to habeas corpus petition and what evidence gets presented to the judge? I am betting ACLU would take this type of case. At the end of day, judge will make final determination and i am having hard time believing that judge will approve quarantine just because someone refused to undergo testing to satisfy CDC.