Skip to comments.
Seizure of medical records upheld in Limbaugh case
The Washington Times ^
| October 7, 2004
| NA
Posted on 10/07/2004 2:44:35 PM PDT by neverdem
|
|
The Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com
Published October 7, 2004
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- Rush Limbaugh's medical records were properly seized by investigators seeking information on reported illegal drug use, an appeals court ruled yesterday.
State investigators had raided the offices of Mr. Limbaugh's doctors seeking information on whether the conservative radio commentator illegally tried to buy prescription painkillers. Mr. Limbaugh, 53, has not been charged with a crime and the investigation had been at a standstill pending a decision on the medical records.
"We hold that the constitutional right of privacy in medical records is not implicated by the state's seizure and review of medical records under a valid search warrant without prior notice or hearing," a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled 2-1.
Prosecutors went after Mr. Limbaugh's medical records after learning that he reportedly received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion.
Mr. Limbaugh admitted his addiction to pain medication last October, saying it stemmed from severe back pain. He took a five-week leave from his radio show to enter a rehabilitation program.
A spokesman for the commentator didn't have any immediate comment, but on his radio program yesterday, Mr. Limbaugh said the ruling would be appealed. |
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fourthamendment; medicalprivacy; privacy; privacyrights; rush; rushlimbaugh
1
posted on
10/07/2004 2:44:36 PM PDT
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
first I've seen this posted here..LOL
2
posted on
10/07/2004 2:45:12 PM PDT
by
Patrick1
To: Patrick1
It's been posted here several times.
3
posted on
10/07/2004 2:47:21 PM PDT
by
wideawake
(God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
To: Patrick1
Maybe you could explain to us, why this is a laughing matter?
4
posted on
10/07/2004 2:48:35 PM PDT
by
Banjoguy
(The most dangerous place in the world today, is in a womb waiting to be born.)
To: Patrick1
in the last 10 minutes, you mean.
5
posted on
10/07/2004 2:48:44 PM PDT
by
dmz
To: Patrick1
{grin} Yeah, it oughta be in Breaking News! </sarcasm></strong>
6
posted on
10/07/2004 2:48:46 PM PDT
by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
To: neverdem
The privacy of medical records only applies to liberals in radio, TV, and Movies. Especially if it has to do with a drug related problem. I hope that two judges are not the end all on a decision to alter the constitutional right to privacy.
7
posted on
10/07/2004 3:36:40 PM PDT
by
CMOTB
(A man is judged by his words and actions, not his facial expressions!)
To: CMOTB
"I hope that two judges ..."
Nope, 3 out of 3 decided that the use of search warrants was OK.
8
posted on
10/08/2004 5:37:18 PM PDT
by
RS
(Just because they are out to get him doesn't mean he's not guilty)
To: RS
I was sure that On Limbaugh's show the other day that he said one of the judges had a decenting vote. I could be wrong, it has happened once in my life I believe :) But I'm pretty sure I heard that. The one judge he said was actually helpful in his case in her statement on her negative vote.
9
posted on
10/08/2004 7:22:43 PM PDT
by
CMOTB
(What is is is anybodies guess. (Clinton Dictionary))
To: CMOTB
I was sure that On Limbaugh's show the other day that he said one of the judges had a decenting vote. I could be wrong, it has happened once in my life I believe :) But I'm pretty sure I heard that. "
In the third Judges decent the judge also agreed with the majority as far as the use of a Search Warrant.
So yes there was a desenting vote, but not against the use of a search warrant.
10
posted on
10/08/2004 7:40:15 PM PDT
by
RS
(Just because they are out to get him doesn't mean he's not guilty)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson