Replies

"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.''

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.

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.

What do you know? You're just a partisan, cool aid drinking Republican, E? :)

Denote sarcasm for lurkers about to pounce.

The point is, medical records are inviolable, PERIOD. No matter who's they are and for whatever reason the DA or anyone else wants them.

No one has the right to snoop in anyone's medical records for any reason, whether they're Rush's medical records or Osama bin laden's.

The doctor/patient thing is as sacred as the pastor/penitent exclusion. How would you like something you confessed to your priest or pastor to come back to haunt you in a criminal procedure?

This is a slippery slope, but I expect you people here who always plant your lips on the LEO and JBT collective hineys to not get it.

"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."

The point is a big IF -

There are many different statutes on FLA books regarding the release of medical records, some requiring a search warrant, some requiring NO subpoenas or warrants. It appears that the courts so far have agreed that the statute regarding the use of subpoenas does not take precedence over all the others and does not negate the laws allowing the use of search warrants.