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 ...
I know. I was using a bit of sarcasm. We determine whether he continues or not. And I don't see too many people jumping ship. How about you?
I'm not jumping! he's the only one I learn anything from. I tell that to others as well.
Let me put it this way, I HATE football, yet I can happily listen to Rush talk about football.
This is why he matters and why the left hates him so:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329283/posts
Bump
The interesting thing about this prosecutors statement is that he wants Rush to throw away his rights, just so he can find evidence he can use against him.
His 'privacy' statement is very telling in that, if he were prosecuting Al Capone during the prohibition years, he would have found out that 'privacy' triumphs over 'states rights'.
I can be the worst criminal in the world, but unless you have 'hard facts' based on solid evidence, my 'rights' will win out everytime.
Now you've completely lost my respect. :) Hehehehe! I'm only kidding!
And you're right on a serious note.
Why do you say that? Rush has never been a JBT fanboy, unlike the Drug War cherleaders that sometimes show up here.
The list of drugs and the dates they were purchased was attached to the affidavit for the search warrant. The amounts and dates overlap and is prima facia evidence of doctor shopping, a crime under florida law.
Um, the prosecutor already found the evidence he needs, Rush and Roy Black are trying to keep it out of Rush's criminal trial.
On a side note...
Rush said that one thing they did in rehab was to prescribe Vioxx for his pain. Now that it's off the market I wonder what he's using.
This is what 'liberalism' has come to these days for its stauchest adherents.
These Liberals need to take a good hard look at themselves...they have morphed into everything they once professed to hate.
I don't think the issues are the same at all. The special privileges are generally creatures of state statutory or common law. In Rush's case, I believe the prosecutors did not follow the statutory notice requirements, and the issue is whether this procedure means anything.
In Roe, I do not think that there was a comparible issue involved. The court was looking at a different kind of privacy rights all together.
I say that only becasue Rush has been so intolerant of drug addicts and he became one himself....ironic, yes?
Hey, i'm a chick. We can get a pass on the football thing, right?
or should i say i'm a 'babe'?
It is not proven because the prosecution submits an affidavit. The defense gets to have an opportunity to explain the situation, including to deny athe allegations in the document supporting the warrant. The police offer is not the fact finder, the court is, after a contested hearing.
In following this case, one of the things that has come out is that if law enforcement officials want medical records under Florida Law, they have to subpoena them. It is a requirement of Florida Law - not a requirement of Rush Limbaugh. Thus, the ASA's point is not valid. If they violated a statutory requirement to get the medical records, if they didn't follow black letter law, it is correct in this matter to assume that law enforcement was not to be trusted.
There must have been some legislative reason for the lawmakers to put this particular requirement into law regarding medical records. Perhaps, they too, have medical records, and would like to have a chance to have any such records sealed before people went rummaging through them before they could challenge the seizure in court. And remember, Limbaugh probably did not possess the records anyway, they were possessed by his doctors. There was little danger of the records being hidden or destroyed. Which, by the way, further erodes any given argument of the ASA about trust.
"Um, the prosecutor already found the evidence he needs,"
How so?
By looking at records they had to legal authority to do?
Or by the fact that Rush had two doctors who prescribed the same drugs?
How is that 'evidence of doctor shopping'?
If both doctors prescribed the drugs for differing symptoms, the it isn't.
I have two doctors who prescribe 'inhalers' that I have to use.
One is Atrovent, and the other it Albuterol.
Does that mean I am 'doctor' shopping to find relief?
Not likely.
As for Rush, hiring Roy Black was his second error of judgement. The first being his abuse of painkillers.
Agree - great point!
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.