Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rush Loses in the Florida Supreme Court
Yahoo ^ | April 28, 2005 | AP

Posted on 04/28/2005 8:01:01 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- The Florida Supreme Court says it won't consider an appeal from conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh. Today's four-to-three order didn't explain the court's reasoning.

Limbaugh's attorney argues that an appeals court misconstrued Florida law when it ruled prosecutors could review the records.

Prosecutors seized Limbaugh's medical records in 2003 for an investigation into whether he illegally purchased prescription painkillers.

Limbaugh hasn't been charged with any crime. He lost at the appellate court level and wanted the Florida Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that would open his medical records and possibly allow prosecutors to build a case against him.

Limbaugh has maintained his innocence throughout the investigation and argues that the case threatens the privacy rights of all Floridians.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: aclu; dhpl; doctorshopping; donutwatch; govwatch; haha; liberaltarians; libertarians; limbaugh; medicalprivacy; medicalrecords; privacy; privacyrights; rshatesrush; rush; whatarush; witchhunt; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-370 next last
To: FreeReign
What percentage of drug dealers do you find likable?

I don't know any, so I could not tell you. But do you believe that pot growers are as "evil" as a violent burnt-out tweaker cooking meth?

341 posted on 04/30/2005 4:53:03 PM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; RS
So he can pick and choose which law he wants to follow?

Not follow, operate under. He's followed the warrant law.

342 posted on 04/30/2005 6:06:21 PM PDT by ClintonBeGone (Malvone = MMK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: ClintonBeGone
He's followed the warrant law.

I'm not sure what you mean by warrant law.

Are you refering to the Fourth Amendment and its equivalent in the FL Constitution?

Or are you refering to a law on the Florida books?

343 posted on 04/30/2005 6:56:37 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: ClintonBeGone; RS
Here is the relevant portion in the FL Constitution:

ARTICLE I   DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 12. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

"No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court."

Is it your argument that this is where the prosecutor gets the authority to bypass Statute 395?

344 posted on 04/30/2005 10:26:37 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

"Is it your argument that this is where the prosecutor gets the authority to bypass Statute 395 ?

Not my argument, simply pointing out that it is the method used by the prosecutor, and the courts who agreed that it was valid. The transcripts are all available on line.


345 posted on 04/30/2005 10:37:28 PM PDT by RS ("I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: RS
Is it your argument that this is where the prosecutor gets the authority to bypass Statute 395 ?

Not my argument, simply pointing out that it is the method used by the prosecutor, and the courts who agreed that it was valid. The transcripts are all available on line.

Fair enough. Where did he get the authority to ignore the statute:

(4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to:

(d) In any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative.

346 posted on 04/30/2005 11:00:57 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

What was done was a violation of FEDERAL HIPPAA regulations...it neededs to be made a Federal suit!


347 posted on 05/01/2005 7:13:54 AM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Federal HIPAA regulations come into play here..Rush's rights were violated!


348 posted on 05/01/2005 7:16:00 AM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Vote 4 Nixon

Rush has actually said very little about drugs in his years on the radio...it's just fashionable to lump all conservative as being totally fanatically against drugs too...hence your delusions regarding his being anti-druggy!


349 posted on 05/01/2005 7:21:24 AM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

"Where did he get the authority to ignore the statute:"

You keep saying he ignored a statute, which simply does not apply - The Florida Constitution gives Law Enforcement a range of tools to use, he simply choose a different one.

The DA has explained this to the courts and the courts have agreed his choice was a valid one.


350 posted on 05/01/2005 9:19:28 AM PDT by RS ("I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Lesson learned: When you become a public figure, so too your human nature becomes a public figure.


351 posted on 05/01/2005 9:58:47 AM PDT by sully777 (If anyone asks, I'm a monger-monger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RS
The Florida Constitution gives Law Enforcement a range of tools to use, he simply choose a different one.

I see no rationale for the law, then. It changed nothing, as far as I can tell.

The DA has explained this to the courts and the courts have agreed his choice was a valid one.

Agreed, but the FL courts have been overturned before on Equal Protection violations.

Suppose the law had just said:

"Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain."

Do you agree that without consent, no medical records would be obtainable under FL law by search warrant or any other method?

352 posted on 05/01/2005 1:48:34 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

"I see no rationale for the law, then. It changed nothing, as far as I can tell. "

That entire section of law ( 305 ) is on HOSPITAL LICENSING AND REGULATION ... it is telling the licensed facilities what they can or cannot do. Without this section in place, there would be no State law preventing hospitals from simply handing out medical records to anyone.


"Suppose the law had just said:

"Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain."

Do you agree that without consent, no medical records would be obtainable under FL law by search warrant or any other method?"

No.

There are over 500 uses of the word "confidential" in the FLA Statutes, many giving no procedure for disclosure - Do you propose that all of these are exempt from any search by law inforcement forever ?

The search warrant statue itself (933) contains NO " unless otherwise prohibited" wording regarding the issuance of search warrants.


353 posted on 05/01/2005 4:13:32 PM PDT by RS ("I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: RS
Suppose the law said: "Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain."

Do you agree that without consent, no medical records would be obtainable under FL law by search warrant or any other method?

No.

There are over 500 uses of the word "confidential" in the FLA Statutes, many giving no procedure for disclosure - Do you propose that all of these are exempt from any search by law inforcement forever ?

No, just the ones the legislature singles out and says "confidential AND shall not be disclosed without consent."

The search warrant statue itself (933) contains NO " unless otherwise prohibited" wording regarding the issuance of search warrants.

True, but my hypothetical law says "must not be disclosed without consent", and you say it can be ignored. Such would deny the patient the protection of that law.

I thought that if two laws are in conflict, the more recent law prevails.

354 posted on 05/01/2005 5:46:21 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

"No, just the ones the legislature singles out and says "confidential AND shall not be disclosed without consent."

Now that makes even less sense, to call them confidental, with NO exceptions listed, then to allow them to be disclosed by any means would negate the entire meaning of confidential - IF what you are suggesting is true.


355 posted on 05/01/2005 5:56:39 PM PDT by RS ("I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: RS
RS: There are over 500 uses of the word "confidential" in the FLA Statutes, many giving no procedure for disclosure - Do you propose that all of these are exempt from any search by law inforcement forever ?

Ken H: No, just the ones the legislature singles out and says "confidential AND shall not be disclosed without consent.

Now that makes even less sense, to call them confidental, with NO exceptions listed, then to allow them to be disclosed by any means would negate the entire meaning of confidential - IF what you are suggesting is true.

Reread my statement. You asked if all the cases would be exempt forever from disclosure. I said that the only ones that would be exempt from disclosure would be where the FL legislature specified an exemption, such as my hypothetical statute saying medical records must not be disclosed without consent. The other cases would not be affected.

356 posted on 05/01/2005 6:14:25 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Revision to #356:

Reread my statement. You asked if all the cases would be exempt forever from disclosure search.

357 posted on 05/01/2005 6:18:42 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at, but it still dosen't work -

If ANY exemption were specified, then all other possible exemptions would be not allowed - yet if NO exemption were specified ANY exemption would be OK.

( let me try to make sense of what I just said :-)


Suppose -

Dog license records are confidential, EXCEPT by request of any animal control officer.

By your theory, Search warrants and Subpeonas could not be used to obtain this information, but any dogcatcher can walk up and ask for them.


358 posted on 05/01/2005 6:33:54 PM PDT by RS ("I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: RS
Dog license records are confidential, EXCEPT by request of any animal control officer.

By your theory, Search warrants and Subpeonas could not be used to obtain this information, but any dogcatcher can walk up and ask for them.

I think the language there is not as definitive as 395.

If the statute read--

"Dog license records are confidential and must not be dislosed without owner's consent, EXCEPT by request of an animal control officer in a criminal investigation."

--I'd say the required way to obtain the records is via an AC officer's request. Silly as it is, that's what the law says.

The Legislature can set rules for gathering evidence (as long as the Fourth Amendment is not violated), and the Executive must follow them.

359 posted on 05/01/2005 7:19:43 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Aracelis
b>Florida - the very last place I would want to live.

Which I have to view as a gain for us Floridians and a loss for whatever state has you now.

360 posted on 05/01/2005 8:38:07 PM PDT by billva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-370 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson