[ClintonBeGone]

In order for that to be the intent of the law, medical records must not have been obtainable by subpoena prior to the passage of 395. (Why pass a law giving them a method they already had?) Were medical records indeed not obtainable by subpoena before 395?

So you agree that they've always been obtainable via search warrant? Often times a legislature will codify a court rule. They've probably always been obtainable via subpoena according to court rule. The law is just a codification of rules promulgated by the judiciary.

[Ken H]

So you agree that they've always been obtainable via search warrant?

Prior to 395, yes. I think 395 meant to do away with search warrants as a way to obtain medical records.

Often times a legislature will codify a court rule. They've probably always been obtainable via subpoena according to court rule. The law is just a codification of rules promulgated by the judiciary.

The subpoena clause of 395 was part of a larger statute devoted to medical privacy.

I believe it was intended to further protect privacy by giving the patient a chance to contest the release. A search warrant negates that opportunity.

The debate seems to be whether or not the prosecutor is required to follow Statute 395. It is a fact that he did not abide by it, agreed?