Posted on 05/29/2004 6:45:11 AM PDT by billorites
IT’S BEEN seven months since Florida prosecutor Barry Krischer opened his investigation into Rush Limbaugh's pain-pill addiction, and still no charges have been brought. It's not for lack of trying.
In a legal foray that increasingly has the look of a partisan political campaign, Mr. Krischer has pulled out all the stops to nail the conservative talk-show host. Regardless of one's political views, the case has troubling connotations for tens of thousands of Americans whose efforts to combat chronic pain result in addiction.
It all began early last year, when Rush's former Palm Beach housekeeper, Wilma Cline, approached the National Enquirer alleging she and her husband were his suppliers. The tabloid's editors balked at running the story. Gin up an official investigation first, they told the Clines.
The couple approached Mr. Krischer, secured an immunity deal and promptly cashed their six-figure check.
Prior to the story becoming public, Mr. Krischer had no intention of nailing Rush for his addiction. Like prosecutors nationwide, Mr. Krischer's policy was to cast a sympathetic eye toward prescription drug addicts, viewing them less as criminals than as victims. But that was before the tabloid hit the newsstands. Or more precisely, before — as Mr. Krischer's top lieutenant publicly stated — hundreds of e-mails and letters poured in from out-of-state partisans urging him to prosecute.
With the Clines hopelessly tainted, Mr. Krischer now seeks to make Rush the first Floridian ever prosecuted for "doctor-shopping" — approaching doctors with bogus ailments solely for pain pills.
So why is this prosecutor targeting Rush? The benign answer is that he is merely enforcing the law: If you do the crime, you do the time. But Mr. Krischer's own actions put the lie to this kind of principled defense.
For starters, there is Mr. Krischer's own reversal in the face of outside pressure. Far from principled, the prosecutor's unusually aggressive line of attack suggests he is merely a patsy for a larger political vendetta. Neither is it principled that Mr. Krischer can't seem to find a crime without bending a few laws himself.
In December, for example, his office leaked to the press that Rush would plead guilty to a felony. This was an ethics breach, but more important, it was false. And Mr. Krischer likely violated state privacy laws by seizing Rush's medical records without a search warrant, subverting a process designed to prevent the kind of fishing expedition the prosecutor is engaged in.
Given that principle seems to be ruled out, Mr. Krischer's motive increasingly appears partisan. He is an elected Democrat, after all, and this is an election year. To bring down the right's most celebrated name would no doubt make a nice trophy for an ambitious politician.
Bagging Rush may serve Barry Krischer well and tickle Al Franken. But in a very important sense, Rush is the red herring in the case.
Aside from the broader ramifications of making prescription drug addicts fair game, Mr. Krischer's tactics already raise troubling questions of precedence. And it is the public that may be hit hardest.
In releasing confidential correspondence regarding plea deals, for example, Mr. Krischer opens the door for others to follow suit. Presumably, co-defendants may now see whether one has ratted out the other — a common divide-and-conquer tactic employed by prosecutors.
Then, too, there is the wholesale abandonment of medical privacy protections. That's why a host of independent and left-leaning groups, such as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the American Civil Liberties Union, have filed briefs in Rush's defense.
None of this is to say that law enforcement doesn't have a legitimate role in curbing prescription drug addiction. Appropriate targets include Internet pharmacies, mail-diploma doctors who scribble prescriptions without visits, and street-corner dealers.
But for those like Rush, who become dependent from legitimate pain prescriptions, a dose of counseling and understanding is the best medicine. Thankfully, in everywhere but Palm Beach, that seems to be the case.
Sam Dealey is a contributor to The American Spectator.
I wonder how many real crimes are being put on the back burner in order to promote this case against Rush.
When I had a break-in at my house the cops just took down a few numbers and that was that. Never heard anything.
Look at the FBI UCR stats page. The laughable solution rate for burglary is not the worst effect the Drug War has had on police effectiveness.
The solution rate for RAPE is declining. And the solution rate for murder is slipping, too.
Buy a gun, you are on your own. The cops are too busy with the Drug War.
Mr Krischer is still a member of the New York bar.
RIP
I am all for drug treatment, even court-ordered drug treatment. But, isn't drug treatment a liberal idea? Aren't the conservatives for crime and punishment?
I can not speak for all conservatives, but I am not against drug treatment for users. The only thing I would do is make it mandatory.
As for dealers, well that is a different story.
In this state we have always had a highly punitive attitude toward criminals, including crimes committed while on drugs. But the populace became so dissatisfied with the nannyism and diversion of law-enforcement resources that the War on Drugs entailed that voters opted to medicalize drug addiction itself, by a wide margin. Legislators, still imbued with the WOD mentality, nullified the proposition the following year. In the next election after that, voters passed propositions that not only restored medicalization but took away the legislature's power to nullify propositions.
Ummm, not both.
More seriously, the Drug War is a failure. It's a fine idea to protect people against truly harmful drugs, but not at the price of, for example, the obscene intrusions by the government into doctor-patient relationships, as in Rush's case, or the financial reporting laws, or the propetry siezures, or the cops currupted by drug money, etc.
There was a time before the Drug War, and we were better off then.
The author forgot the pending bar complaint. That has serious implications for Mr. Krishner. Regardless of what happens to Rush's "case", the Bar complaint continues independently. The Bar has yet to do anything which is significant. The longer they wait the more likely this will be passed on to committee. I also submit the internal politics of the Bar is protecting Mr. Krisner by delaying a preliminary determination of probably cause against his coduct as a lawyer.
drug court is a republican idea and enacted.
Its a solution based concept, not an "own the issue" based democrat do nothing concept.
For firts timers, drug court is an automatic offer if they want it. Of course it means you actually have to be charged with SOMETHING.
Actually, a search warrant was used to seize Rush's records and that's the problem
Florida law specifically says that medical records are to be obtained by subpoena and this was not done.
The legality of that seizure is now in an appeals court and their decision will determine how the case will proceed.
"The author forgot the pending bar complaint. "
The author also forgot that the holdup now in the investigation is the case of Limbaugh Vs. the State of Florida.
According to Landmark Legal's complaint ( an uneffected complainant)
http://www.landmarklegal.org/latest_developments.cfm?webpage_id=570
it appears to be a "he said - she said".
It's going nowhere...
"There are some interesting side-posts to this story that cannot be revealed now but one day it will all comeout."
COOL... secrets ! what do you know about the existance or non-existance of "interesting side-points" ?
How do you knoe that these exist ?
If you are privy to some secret info, why do you chose to reveal that there is in fact secret info ?
Enquirering minds want to know !!
"For firts timers, drug court is an automatic offer if they want it. "
Almost, but not quite true - the DA must sign off on it.
Here's the contract that alleged perps must agree to -
http://www.dcpi.ncjrs.org/docs/Skills-Based%20Contracts.doc
but you are correct, it appears that unless he is charged with a crime he cannot enter a diversion program.
So all of these " he is not being treated the same " people can just wait until ( or if ) he is charged.
"Florida law specifically says that medical records are to be obtained by subpoena and this was not done. "
As you well know, not true, Florida law gives situations where records can be obtained under search warrent or with no subpeona or warrant at all.
As a practical matter perhaps. But the CLERKS office is under instruction to send all first time cases to drug court.
No prosecutor's office can functionally reject a person into drug court who is otherwise eligible without loosing a claim of selective enforcent.
Hello again.
We have covered this before. And we will again.
Rush is a first timer and has a right to drug court as an end user, same as anyone else.
"Rush is a first timer and has a right to drug court as an end user, same as anyone else."
He has the right to drug court depending on the DA's OKee-Dokie, same as anyone else. The DA is not required to sign off on it, nor give any explaination why he does or does not.
If he applies and signs the contract, the DA can agree or not. But that appears to be an argument for a future time, my friend, and I suspect at that time we may be on the same side.
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.