Thanks.
But not one word about hipa.
Not even an intimation. Maybe the guy on the phone was talking hipa but that is not mentioned or reported in the article.
Here is all it said:
“Alex Wubbels, seen here in various images from police body cam video, was arrested after explaining to police that she couldn’t draw a blood sample from an unconscious person at University Hospital. A Salt Lake City police detective asked for a blood sample. After explaining to the detective that the police needed a warrant, consent from the unconscious patient or that the patient needed to be under arrest before the blood sample could be drawn, she was arrested.”
Consent is Fifth Amendment.
There’s no hipa. The police were not asking to see medical records.
If this is HIPPA it was not explained well or at all in any report I read.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
HIPPA, privacy laws, and the policy the hospital had worked out with the police dept. are (mostly) derived from the 4th. It need not be explained: Any damn fool who's run into these issues, or ever signed off on paperwork prior to any medical service from a new (to the patient) provider would be aware of the issues. (Ok, that assumes said damn fool was enough of a non fool to read what they signed.) You substitute "medical records" in your argument, but that is just being obtuse. (Kirk's "Finnegan") The issue is "medical or health information", which is NOT necessarily medical records, and is legally required to be tightly guarded & protected, as is consent for any medical procedure.
Again, I am telling you, don't accept this from me, just ask any medical professional.
Oh, wait. Some have already commented on this thread.