The right to change your mind (Rush and Roger Clemens)

msnbc.com ^ | 1/13/2004 | Keith Olbermann

[Doomonyou]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[clintonh8r]

Send it to Rush. He's the one who's quoted (see the full article) as saying there's no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.

[Az Joe]

If a legitimate, duly appointed court of law needs those records to make sure that justice is administered correctly I don't see how they can be withheld.

The only exceptions I know of are National Security and/or Executive Privilige.

[Mr. Bird]

If a legitimate, duly appointed court of law needs those records to make sure that justice is administered correctly I don't see how they can be withheld.

I think that's what tripped them up on appeal. The question is whether the state has the authority to seize the documents in order to determine if a crime has occurred. They don't need the records to "administer justice". They need the records to find out if any justice needs to be administered, which is a huge difference. And the only cause they have is the fact that he had more than one doctor, hardly a unique circumstance in Florida (or any other state).

The proper sequence of events in a doctor shopping case would be for one of the physicians to file the complaint, and then have the state subpoena the records; the docs are the only individuals with adequate knowledge of the circumstances to determine whether probable cause exists.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Is he out of the closet yet?

[blackie]

Rush Rocks!

[Az Joe]

They also have the emails and the testimony of the maid supposedly. But you have a good point.