Posted on 04/28/2005 8:01:01 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
I don't know any, so I could not tell you. But do you believe that pot growers are as "evil" as a violent burnt-out tweaker cooking meth?
Not follow, operate under. He's followed the warrant law.
I'm not sure what you mean by warrant law.
Are you refering to the Fourth Amendment and its equivalent in the FL Constitution?
Or are you refering to a law on the Florida books?
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 12. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
"No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court."
Is it your argument that this is where the prosecutor gets the authority to bypass Statute 395?
"Is it your argument that this is where the prosecutor gets the authority to bypass Statute 395 ?
Not my argument, simply pointing out that it is the method used by the prosecutor, and the courts who agreed that it was valid. The transcripts are all available on line.
Not my argument, simply pointing out that it is the method used by the prosecutor, and the courts who agreed that it was valid. The transcripts are all available on line.
Fair enough. Where did he get the authority to ignore the statute:
(4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to:
(d) In any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative.
What was done was a violation of FEDERAL HIPPAA regulations...it neededs to be made a Federal suit!
Federal HIPAA regulations come into play here..Rush's rights were violated!
Rush has actually said very little about drugs in his years on the radio...it's just fashionable to lump all conservative as being totally fanatically against drugs too...hence your delusions regarding his being anti-druggy!
"Where did he get the authority to ignore the statute:"
You keep saying he ignored a statute, which simply does not apply - The Florida Constitution gives Law Enforcement a range of tools to use, he simply choose a different one.
The DA has explained this to the courts and the courts have agreed his choice was a valid one.
Lesson learned: When you become a public figure, so too your human nature becomes a public figure.
I see no rationale for the law, then. It changed nothing, as far as I can tell.
The DA has explained this to the courts and the courts have agreed his choice was a valid one.
Agreed, but the FL courts have been overturned before on Equal Protection violations.
Suppose the law had just said:
"Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain."
Do you agree that without consent, no medical records would be obtainable under FL law by search warrant or any other method?
"I see no rationale for the law, then. It changed nothing, as far as I can tell. "
That entire section of law ( 305 ) is on HOSPITAL LICENSING AND REGULATION ... it is telling the licensed facilities what they can or cannot do. Without this section in place, there would be no State law preventing hospitals from simply handing out medical records to anyone.
"Suppose the law had just said:
"Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain."
Do you agree that without consent, no medical records would be obtainable under FL law by search warrant or any other method?"
No.
There are over 500 uses of the word "confidential" in the FLA Statutes, many giving no procedure for disclosure - Do you propose that all of these are exempt from any search by law inforcement forever ?
The search warrant statue itself (933) contains NO " unless otherwise prohibited" wording regarding the issuance of search warrants.
Do you agree that without consent, no medical records would be obtainable under FL law by search warrant or any other method?
No.
There are over 500 uses of the word "confidential" in the FLA Statutes, many giving no procedure for disclosure - Do you propose that all of these are exempt from any search by law inforcement forever ?
No, just the ones the legislature singles out and says "confidential AND shall not be disclosed without consent."
The search warrant statue itself (933) contains NO " unless otherwise prohibited" wording regarding the issuance of search warrants.
True, but my hypothetical law says "must not be disclosed without consent", and you say it can be ignored. Such would deny the patient the protection of that law.
I thought that if two laws are in conflict, the more recent law prevails.
"No, just the ones the legislature singles out and says "confidential AND shall not be disclosed without consent."
Now that makes even less sense, to call them confidental, with NO exceptions listed, then to allow them to be disclosed by any means would negate the entire meaning of confidential - IF what you are suggesting is true.
Ken H: No, just the ones the legislature singles out and says "confidential AND shall not be disclosed without consent.
Now that makes even less sense, to call them confidental, with NO exceptions listed, then to allow them to be disclosed by any means would negate the entire meaning of confidential - IF what you are suggesting is true.
Reread my statement. You asked if all the cases would be exempt forever from disclosure. I said that the only ones that would be exempt from disclosure would be where the FL legislature specified an exemption, such as my hypothetical statute saying medical records must not be disclosed without consent. The other cases would not be affected.
Reread my statement. You asked if all the cases would be exempt forever from disclosure search.
Oh, I think I see what you're getting at, but it still dosen't work -
If ANY exemption were specified, then all other possible exemptions would be not allowed - yet if NO exemption were specified ANY exemption would be OK.
( let me try to make sense of what I just said :-)
Suppose -
Dog license records are confidential, EXCEPT by request of any animal control officer.
By your theory, Search warrants and Subpeonas could not be used to obtain this information, but any dogcatcher can walk up and ask for them.
By your theory, Search warrants and Subpeonas could not be used to obtain this information, but any dogcatcher can walk up and ask for them.
I think the language there is not as definitive as 395.
If the statute read--
"Dog license records are confidential and must not be dislosed without owner's consent, EXCEPT by request of an animal control officer in a criminal investigation."
--I'd say the required way to obtain the records is via an AC officer's request. Silly as it is, that's what the law says.
The Legislature can set rules for gathering evidence (as long as the Fourth Amendment is not violated), and the Executive must follow them.
Which I have to view as a gain for us Floridians and a loss for whatever state has you now.
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.