If a person had just come from an area hit by a serious public health danger (of a communicable disease sort) and has been observed exhibiting some symptoms (of the communicable disease that is seen as a serious public health danger at the time) and is non-cooperative in terms of being tested, then I wouldn’t be surprised if even a panel of judges would agree that such person could be subject to a quarantine or other hold for observation absent an agreement to be tested and further cooperate.

Mandatory invasive testing of persons not exhibiting any symptoms for the disease is one thing. Mandatory non-invasive testing of persons not exhibiting any symptoms but having had just come from staying in the disease-affected area is another thing. I would be surprised if they were viewed the same way by most.