Posted on 02/14/2005 1:34:15 PM PST by rface
WEST PALM BEACH -- The prosecutor investigating whether Rush Limbaugh illegally purchased prescription painkillers told the Florida Supreme Court on Monday that investigators should be allowed to review the conservative radio commentator's medical records.
Assistant State Attorney James Martz said Limbaugh's argument that he should have been notified before the records were seized by investigators is equivalent to saying ``that law enforcement is never to be trusted.''
``Then search warrants should never be issued and law enforcement should never be permitted to investigate criminal activity for fear that they will abuse the power granted,'' Martz wrote in a brief filed with the Florida Supreme Court. ``Such reasoning would eviscerate law enforcement's ability to protect the public and enforce the law.''
Martz added that the 4th District Court of Appeal's ruling, which said Limbaugh's privacy rights were not violated when the records were seized in 2003, should be upheld.
``Privacy rights cannot operate as an impenetrable shield to conceal, camouflage, or secrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing,'' Martz wrote.
Limbaugh and his attorney, Roy Black, had no comment on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
Except Rush never referred to the politics of the addicts he commented on. To the lying, lunatic, liberal left it's the politics of anyone who criticizes them that is the "sin" (odd, isn't it how the only "evil" in the world to a liberal--those who do not believe there is such a thing as evil--is criticizing them).
the world is changing fast. I think the results of this past election will lead to many changes in both parties and perhaps a societal paradigm shift on how values are discussed and debated....may be a rocky road ahead, but I think it will smooth out by 2008.
"The prosecutor investigating whether Rush Limbaugh illegally purchased prescription painkillers..."
"The use of the word "illegally" is the only thing I need to see, to set he Journalista's point of view."
LOL - would you expect the prosecutor to be investigating to see if Rush legally bought drugs ? It's not the journalists point of view, it's simply reality - prosecutors look for illegal activity.
"Since medical records were considered to be part of the "doctor/client privilege" neither they could be subpoenaed nor medical staff summoned and questioned, in order to build such a case."
His records were not subpoenaed - Rush's lawyers complaint is based on them not being subpoenaed.
"Buying thugdrugs puts money into the hands of some of the nastiest, most despicable people on earth."
IF Rush was buying drugs illegally for years ( NOT the crime he is currently under investigation for ) - these are the people who were supplying them -
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/beshara1.html
I don't think this is correct. Currently, doctors must notify law enforcement if a gunshot victim comes in for treatment or if a suspected drunk driver in an accident comes in.
I always wondered how this didn't infringe doctor/patient privilege.
Not a chance. Check how many other doctor shopping violations have been prosecuted. If Rush were just an ordinary citizen, the prosecutor nor the police would have cared at all.
You have it backwards - the issue is whether the prosecution violated Limbaugh's rights to OBTAIN the evidence.
What exactly do you find ironic?
"If Rush were just an ordinary citizen, the prosecutor nor the police would have cared at all."
Charles Crist, the Republican Florida AG disagrees with you -
"Why is it so important to stop doctor shopping? It would save lives. .... Subtracting alcohol, prescription drugs accounted for 60 percent of drug-related overdose deaths in 2002. Everything possible must be done to prevent these deaths."
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/NewsBrie.nsf/OnlineBrief/58EDCCEEDD397B3785256D720045199F
Talk is cheap. Again, how many other prosecutions have there been for doctor shopping in that jurisdiction?
A friend of mine who is no Rush Limbaugh fan told me about the time he was perscribed Oxycontin (sp?) for his back. He took it for 5 days according to the perscription and was addicted. He told me about a friend who asked him how long he had been taking the drug. When he told the friend the friend said, "It's too late, you're hooked." My friend managed to beat the addiction much faster than Rush did, but he is not the drug abuse type. This is simply a highly addictive drug.
Not to either condemn or acquit Rush, just to shed some light.
Shalom.
"Talk is cheap. "
Not my talk - go argue with the AG - but here's some background -
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/news/limbaugh/031104_limbaugh.html
Subpeoned, acquired, stolen, whatever.. the point is the same. The authorities think they have a right to access to his medical records, and the leftists agree.
The same rules do not apply to Emergency Room patients, however Rush was not an emergency room patient.
I heard Rush announce his addiction. I heard him announce his plans. I heard him apologize and ask for prayers. I never heard him blame anyone but himself.
I don't see the irony.
Shalom.
Shades of Michael Crichton's The Terminal Man.
Shalom.
"The authorities think they have a right to access to his medical records, and the leftists agree."
LOL - "think they have a right" .... sorry my friend, so far Rush has lost every court proceding with that attitude.
I suppose they "think they have a right" to go after tax cheats and murderers also...
CH, you ignorant slut.
OK, OK, I just had to say that.
I think you need to distinguish between a logically arrived conviction and a religious conviction. I have logically arrived at the conviction that you can't trust the government. Even if every elected official is trustworthy, you simply can't trust the government. I can argue that because I arrived at it logically.
I have a religious conviction that man is not an intelligent mammal but an entirely different KIND. I believe it and can discuss the theology behind it, but I can not argue it with someone who does not believe in the G-d of Abraham because we have no common basis for our discussion. However, I can usually agree to disagree on those because I recognize the trap.
Shalom.
Popeye? Is that you?
Shalom.
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.