The DEA Wants to Access Your Medical Records Without Consent or a Warrant

Back in 2011, the Office of National Drug Control Policy released a list of strategies for combating prescription pill abuse. From a civil liberties standpoint, one strategy in particular stood out: "Identify and seek to remove administrative and regulatory barriers to 'pill mill' and prescriber investigations that impair investigations while not serving another policy goal." Last year I wondered what the DEA and the ONDCP might do to "remove" barriers that are meant to protect patient privacy. The ACLU has an answer for us

The Drug Enforcement Administration is trying to access private prescription records of patients in Oregon without a warrant, despite a state law forbidding it from doing so. The ACLU and its Oregon affiliate are challenging this practice in a new case that raises the question of whether the Fourth Amendment allows federal law enforcement agents to obtain confidential prescription records without a judge’s prior approval. It should not.

In 2009, the Oregon legislature created the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), which tracks prescriptions for certain drugs dispensed by Oregon pharmacies, including all of the medications listed above. The program was intended to help physicians prevent drug overdoses by their patients and more easily recognize signs of drug abuse. Because the medical information revealed by these prescription records is highly sensitive, the legislature created robust privacy and security protections for the PDMP, including a requirement that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before requesting records for use in an investigation. But despite those protections, the DEA has been requesting prescription records from the PDMP using administrative subpoenas which, unlike warrants, do not involve demonstrating probable cause to a neutral judge.

The State of Oregon sued the DEA in federal court to defend its right to require law enforcement, including federal agencies, to obtain the warrants required by state law. Today, the ACLU filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of several patients and a doctor whose prescription records are contained in the PDMP. Our clients are concerned that the privacy of their medical information will be violated if the DEA is allowed to search through prescription records without a warrant. If the DEA can demonstrate to a judge that it has probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that prescription records will provide evidence of that crime, then it can legitimately obtain records from the PDMP. Because prescription records and the medical information they reveal are such a sensitive matter, protecting their privacy is vital, and we argue that obtaining private and confidential prescription records without a warrant constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Florida isn't waiting around for the DEA. A Central Florida taskforce has already taken patient records without a warrant, and cops in Southwest Florida are trying to trick patients into signing away their privacy. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Randian||

    This is Riggs trolling for more Heroic Mulatto Rule 34.

  • SugarFree||

    There's nothing sexual about that picture. She's merely describing the torta she had for lunch.

  • Brett L||

    Riggs obviously reads the comments, yes.

  • ||

    At this point, I have to wonder if the obsession with stopping "pill mills" and painkiller prescriptions isn't just straight up insanely vicious sadism. Like, "you're going to suffer and that's the way it is" kind of Mother Theresa style sadism. Nothing else makes sense.

  • sarcasmic||

    As with guns, peasants cannot be trusted with painkillers.

    It's not like a government agent on disability will be questioned when he refills his ninety day supply of Oxycontin. He can be trusted. You cannot.

  • Brett L||

    Nah. Its the classic disconnect of having the Rule of Law breakdown. The government and their agents can always get pills (because THEY would never abuse them), so it must be that anyone who can't get pills isn't really in pain. Which is why I have an idea for removing agents of the state from prosecuting agents of the state. A rotating board of practicing lawyers, barred from ever seeking or holding elected or appointed office, and a similar set of professional investigators would be appointed to investigate all such accusations against state agents, and required to present their findings to a grand jury. Its cloudy, but its the only way to broadly restore the Rule of Law.

  • ||

    The Rule of Law is a fantasy, which is why you have to come with elaborate schemes to try and male it "work". There is no Rule of Law, and wishing so will never make it so. There is only Rule of Man.

    The sooner this is accepted as the reality, the better.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    newsletter, subscribe, etc etc
    but leave out the warty swimsuit issue

  • Ted S.||

    You get the Steve Smith swimsuit issue instead.

  • Brett L||

    Sure, the optimum solution is to have few laws rarely needing enforcement. Barring that, I think having only eunuchs allowed on a police force is another good solution.

  • sloopyinca||

    Any private citizen or group should be able to investigate agents of the state with reasonable suspicion and obtain a warrant with probable cause. They should also be able to convene a grand jury to bring evidence against a state actor and present evidence they legally obtained (within the guidelines listed above).

    Also, Citizen Review Boards should consist of randomly selected members of the public and all government employees should be forbidden. Their identities should be secret and they should have subpoena power.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Bureau of Sabotage?

  • BuSab Agent||

    yes

  • tarran||

    I think there are many bad psychological drivers at work here.

    Pious sadism that promotes virtue through pain; aggression aimed at the weak that gains vengeance on those who lack the will to avoid addiction; aggression aimed at those who threaten the social order by being out of the norm.

    Of course, it also attracts the sadists and a mass of petty bullies who don't really believe but want an easy pay-check, and you've got a nice little democidal campaign going.

  • ||

    I agree with all that, but I swear the primary driver is the pious sadism at this point. Because the net result of everything they're doing is to cause unnecessary suffering on the part of pain sufferers. There literally is no other end result.

  • sarcasmic||

    The point is to get pills out of the hands of those who would use them for pleasure.

    Remember that pleasure from chemicals is morally bad, but breaking down doors and threatening to kill people for the adrenaline rush is to be commended.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Isn't adrenaline a kind of chemical?

  • sloopyinca||

    Why do you want the criminals to win, EvH?

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Remember that pleasure from chemicals is morally bad

    This includes the pleasure you feel from no longer being in pain.

  • SugarFree||

    But there is also a Top Men component. Of course the right people get their pills, for the right people are running the system. The only people ever hurt by regulations are the people who deserve it.

    The people who support drugs laws are simply not those people whom they will never apply to, right?

  • SugarFree||

    *ever apply* gurg.

  • ||

    I don't know, NutraSweet. We look for all these reasons, but sometimes, the simplest answer is the best. I've known pious sadists, and they literally have no other motivation other than that pain and suffering are virtuous. That's it.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Other people's pain and suffering.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Pious sadism that promotes virtue through pain

    Jeremy Bentham, you have a call on line one. Bentham, line one.

  • some guy||

    But, but, like dozens of people fall victim to pill-induced suicidal depression every year! Something must be done to stop this epidemic!

    For the children!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Why? Do you have something to hide?
    You don't have anything to hide, do you?

  • R C Dean||

    Because the one entity that HIPAA doesn't really protect your health records from is the government, don't expect anything on that front.

  • sloopyinca||

    I will never, ever go to a Dr that has electronic medical records and I will never, ever sign a release to make my records electronic. When Banjos and I first went to her gyno because she was pregnant, they tried to get us to give them both of our SSN's. When we gave the forms back without it, they told us to fill it in and had no idea what to do when we refused. We explained our reasons to the doc and he was perfectly fine with it and had no idea why they'd even ask for it.

    Long story short: refuse to give any more information than a Dr's office needs and don't go to one with electronic record-keeping.

  • ||

    But don't lie to you Dr. either, sloop.

    If I ask if you are a smoker, for example, (heavy, frequent, or infrequent), I expect you to tell me the truth (smoking can cause complications with WX healing and stroke/embolism concerns).

    If I ask a specific medical question, there's a reason for it and I can medically justify it (as does the party paying for your care has the right to know).

    As far as electronic record keeping goes, eventually it will be next to impossible to avoid, since both CMS/Medicaid and Big Insurance like it. A. LOT. Though at the last private outfit where I was employed, we kept our servers on site and used as much paper/triplicate as possible.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'd never lie to a doctor, Doc. But I will tell him/her if a question is none of their business, and will certainly do the same for their receptionist that tells me I have to fill in a bunch of my personal information at my wife's doctor's office.

  • ||

    But I will tell him/her if a question is none of their business

    See answer below @ 12.58. Because of my spectacular liability, if you don't answer the question truthfully, if I find out otherwise, I have no qualms:

    1) Dropping you as a patient (it's MUCH harder for me to get fire you than you fire me.)

    2) Because of COBRA/EMTALA, doctors and nurses, in ER's, cannot deny you care for any reason.

    3) I will not tolerate insurance fraud, and will report you to the insurance co. and any relevant authorities.

    Also, the only time I would ask if you own a gun, is if I am excising bullets out of you, as with GSW's, police are notified and may need to prove that it was your gun than went off, as opposed to another gun that may have been used in an unrelated crime. Otherwise, I don't care and "...Shall not be infringed..." is non-negotiable.

    "You don't have to drink orange juice."

  • Randian||

    But don't lie to you Dr. either, sloop

    If you're going to report me to BigGov, then you're part of the problem, doc.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm pretty sure he meant don't lie to them because it could affect your diagnosis in a bad way.

  • ||

    If you're going to report me to BigGov, then you're part of the problem, doc.

    UKR, TAO. I fled here for a (many) reason(s). Or, as a licensed member of the bar, do you support fraud?

    I notice a disturbing number of Reasonoids (absent gun laws) seem to support fraud and are not called out on it.

    You asked me once, on a student loan thread, "If you had a known addict present, would you RX them [opiate] painkillers?"

    I answered, "Yes, I would, as even addicts feel PX," since I don't know what your PX intensity is and I am not gifted with psychic discernment. That doesn't mean, because of the patient's HX, that I won't keep the RX on short leash.

    This is why I support all scheduled PX drugs either OTC or dispensed by a pharmacist, as PX is not an infectious condition and peculiar to the patient.

  • Ted S.||

    Or, as a licensed member of the bar, do you support fraud?

    We need to take all of the regulations that apply to health care and apply them to the business of law, too.

    Single-payer law. Because no lawyer does anything worth more than minimum wage.

  • Bryan C||

    "If I ask a specific medical question, there's a reason for it and I can medically justify it (as does the party paying for your care has the right to know)."

    Then you should be prepared to offer that justification on request. This is annoying, will require extra time, and harms the trust essential to a doctor-patient relationship. If you don't like that, you're in a better position to push back and fix it than most of us are.

    You're probably right about EMRs. The problem isn't that they're electronic, of course, it's that they're very poorly implemented for the stated purposes. This is because the unstated purposes are more important to the government, and incompatible with the stated purposes.

  • ||

    The reason the SSN is requested as to verify you are you and not committing insurance fraud and becomes part of your medical record number (MRN) and medical HX (This is general SOP for large hospital networks and country hospital networks that have an ER. Small boutiques and concierge practices, as of now, can get around this).

    If you are paying cash or requesting a payment plan, the SSN is needed for a credit check.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm not their patient, though. They have no need or right for any of my information and I refused to share it with them. Banjos name was on her insurance card, which was easily verified against her driver's license. So they don't have it unless the insurance carrier gave it to them, which would be illegal.

  • ||

    I'm not their patient, though

    They are my employee and subject to HIPAA as much as I am. Also, once again, a driver's license can be easily faked. So can an insurance card. The insurance co. depends on the provider, as per contract, to mitigate against risk and fraud.

    Google "medical insurance fraud", sloop. There are some ingenious ways that criminals use to bilk insurance companies.

  • sloopyinca||

    Meh. They can verify her information with a simple phone call. And I don't think pulling a medical fraud scam would be too good an idea at an OB/GYN as you go through then entire pregnancy. Methinks someone would catch on at the insurance company or when the insured gets an EOB telling them their visit with the preggo-doc was covered 100%

  • ||

    No, it wouldn't. But some people are pretty desperate (or Tulpa levels obstinate and defiant) that they have no qualms pulling fraud now and paying later. Or some info thief times their pregnancy (or something else) using Banjo's med info. (Biometrics is about to become VERY popular in the USA, and routinely used in Euro-landia).

    Assuming you can catch them. Like in a so-called "sanctuary city" where it can be easy to "get lost" when patients have the same name and trading Green Cards (or any other info).

    And these people, when malpractice occurs, have the right to sue.

    You can't get around liability, sloop. Sorry.

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh, I guess I see in your scenario how that may work. I just didn't think of it since my name isn't that common.

  • ||

    I just didn't think of it since my name isn't that common.

    No, you are just not dishonest, my friend.

  • Zeb||

    And using SSNs for identification purposes is bullshit. Unless they are giving me credit, no private party has any business asking for it.

  • ||

    Unless they are giving me credit, no private party has any business asking for it.

    I do. Or else, and I don't want to sound mean and sadistic, Zeb, if I can't verify that you are you, I have no problems letting you bleed to death or your appendix or gall bladder infarct. 100% self-ownership goes both ways, my friend, and I won't operate on you otherwise. There is, however, another thread on medical tourism I suggest you read.-)))

    There is a reason there are some states in the US I will not step foot (unless absolutely necessary) until I no longer have an American medical license. (Google "Good Samaritan Laws").

    "You don't have to drink orange juice."

  • Bryan C||

    Sure, the SSN I give you could verify that I am me. Or it can just as easily verify that I am someone else entirely. And if I make up a number on the spot you won't know until after you've run a credit check.

    But I assume that you're doing this little dance for CYA purposes, and that you already know all this.

  • R C Dean||

    Unless they are giving me credit,

    Unless you are paying cash upfront, your doctor/hospital is extending you credit. That third party payor won't pay for weeks or months, and may not pay everything, or at all, in which case they will come after you.

    We just had a big fight over this around identity fraud/"red flag" rules, so trust me, that's the economic reality.

  • ||

    They have no need or right for any of my information and I refused to share it with them.

    Oh, I almost forgot, before I go to bed. You, as Banjo's MPOA/medical care proxy via being her hubby, we need to verify you are her husband WRT (God forbid) any EOL or medical care decisions if Banjos, Baby Reason, or if any of your other children are incapacitated.

    EVERYONE hates it when someone not duly appointed is making medical care decisions (except med mal attys). Full Stop.

  • Ted S.||

    SSN was never supposed to be used as a unique form of ID. At least, that was the nonsense the program was originally sold with.

  • Drake||

    Does HIPAA really exclude government agencies? I will have to look it up. I would try to sue my doctor if they turned over my records without permission.

  • ||

    I would try to sue my doctor if they turned over my records without permission.

    Read your release of information policy very carefully. If I am participating in a drug study, for example, I can submit that relevant info at any time, as my office owns those records. The medical records belong to the provider, not the patient, though HIPAA does provide patient info protection enforceable by strict (and very expensive) law.

    What the stategov and fedgov does, like with the DEA if they decide I am "RX'ing too much PX meds", they can pull those records at any time and leave me a nice little email saying essentially,

    "Dear Dr. Groovus. Thanks for the peek as we did notify you beforehand electronically we'd be checking up on you from time to time. You know, you should lay off RX'ing so much Oxy's and meperidine. Just a suggestion. SMOOCHES!"

    UKR, OTOH, leaves me alone WRT most of that stuff, and the onus is moreso on the pharmacist. I have to worry more about Interpol now.

  • R C Dean||

    Does HIPAA really exclude government agencies?

    Not in so many words, but it is riddled with loopholes allowing them to get your records.

  • GroundTruth||

    Read the HIPPA regs. They basically mean that anyone who cares about you (spouse, child / parent, neighbor or friend) can not be be given ANY information.

    However, any governmental goon can demand anything with full impunity and no warrant.

    "Oh Brave New World!"

  • sloopyinca||

    Speaking of pill use in Florida, it looks like it's starting to even tear down the thick, blue wall.

    FTA: He is currently suspended with pay pending prosecution by the State Attorney’s Office.

    Yeah, who wants to take my bet that this ends up with the charges being dropped and a workman's comp claim being filed?

  • Tman||

    That's nuthin'.

    Here in Tennessee we had a judge who was popping pills like candy whilst on the bench.

    The best part was that he used to buy the pills from people he sentenced to jail for selling pills.

    http://www.globalpost.com/disp.....lls-had-se

  • sloopyinca||

    Follow up to your story. He's fighting to get his pension back after he spent zero days in jail.

  • Tman||

    Yeah, the whole story is a giant fucking disgrace, but those of us who are reasonably familiar with the Tennessee judicial system already know how unbelievably corrupt it is. The fact that they took his pension away to begin with surprised many of us.

  • Zeezrom||

    So ... maybe it's better if pot stays illegal?

  • sarcasmic||

    Detective provides an ounce of cocaine and three drug-sniffing dogs for daughter's 4th grade science experiment (and the project wins first prize)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z2JO6M2a5T

  • Brett L||

    Lemme guess, only a 'teenth came back.

  • sarcasmic||

  • ||

    fwiw, pharmacies ime are pretty cavalier about releasing info.

    i've walked into pharmacies before and based merely on a request, no warrant, not even a subpoena, they've released a patient's complete prescription history to me. printed it out and everything. i was pretty amazed, but it happened several times, so it wasn't a fluke.

    these weren't possessory cases/minor cases; the last case involved a kid with a prescription for adderrall who was selling it at the school to other kids. but it still amazed me that the pharmacist didn't consider any privacy interest on behalf of the client

  • sloopyinca||

    What kind of libertarian would go into a pharmacy and request medical records (read: personal effects and papers) from a third party without first obtaining a warrant by showing probable cause?

    I guess you don't give a fuck about the 4A, do you?

  • tarran||

    More to the point, I thought the depraved piece of shit didn't do drug investigations?

    Wow, I wonder if he kisses his mom with his lyin' whore mouth.

  • sloopyinca||

    And I will apologize to those that might just view this as me picking another fight with dunphy, but I really can't believe any self-respecting human being would use the station of their office to illegally obtain medical records without a warrant just to make their job for the state easier. It's disgraceful and despicable that we allow this to happen. In a sane and just world, people like this that abuse their position (read: agent of the state) would suffer a serious fate, bu instead it is looked at as "creative" and "good police work". It's nothing more than jackboot thuggery.

  • ||

    i don't usually respond to trolls, but as usual you play games.

    here you beg the question "illegally obtain medical records"

    it was not illegal. the case was successfully prosecuted and no objection was made to the pharmacy info nor was their any judicial notice that it was ILLEGAL.

    again, there is no reason to believe that walking into a pharmacy and asking for patient X's prescription history pursuant to an investigation into him selling his prescription drugs is ILLEGAL

    it is NOT illegal. it's good police work and i stand by it.

    one question the pharmacist did ask was was the crime "ongoing". it was and i answered in the affirmative. that may have affected his decision.

  • sloopyinca||

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

    How is obtaining one's private records (papers and effects) through a third party without first obtaining a warrant or the consent of the person in question in accordance with the above?

  • sarcasmic||

    Since when did legislation have to conform to that stinky old document written by rich, white, slave owners?

  • ||

    the 4th amendment does not say a warrant is required for all searches. we've gone over this before. and there are countless searches that are routinely done w/o warrants.

    the 4th amendment says all searches must be reasonable. it defines WHEN warrants shall issue , it does not say "no searches shall commence w/o a warrant".

    my actions were upheld even undert eh MUCH stricter WA constitution vs. the 4th

    you said it was illegal. it was not. the fact is there wasn't even an ATTEMPT to make such an argument by the defense. i think the defense attorney and prosecuting attorney know the law a little better than you. neither had a problem with the pharmacy search

  • sloopyinca||

    As usual, you contort the text of the 4A and use misinterpretations that have occurred in American courtrooms to support your immoral and illegal behavior. Because Terry stops have been upheld, that doesn't give you the right to obtain medical records through a third party without a warrant. Reasonable suspicion can get you so far with someone you suspect, but not with someone else who may have information about that person you suspect. You must meet the threshold for a subpoena/warrant in that case.

    If that defense attorney was worth a damn (I'd be willing to bet he was court-appointed and just rolled over instead of presenting a roust defense), he would have grilled you on how you obtained the records and they would have been thrown out. My BiL attorney (prosecutor by trade) just told me so. And he's no scrub.

    Either way, your immorality shows every time you post one of these stories where you bust somebody for doing something that shouldn't even be a crime.

  • ||

    my actions were upheld even undert eh MUCH stricter WA constitution vs. the 4th

    if there wasn't an attempt to squash your illegal search, in what way were your actions "upheld"?

  • Zeb||

    Just playing devil's advocate here. I suppose there is a question as to who owns the pharmacy's sales records. It could be reasonably argued that the pharmacy owns them, I think. If that is the case, then the corporate policy of giving the records to police eliminates the obligation to the police to get a warrant. So the question comes down to whether the records can be said to be owned by the patient.

  • sloopyinca||

    I've always understood medical records to belong to the patient with the doctor's office or pharmacist acting as custodian of them. They have specific and limited power to release them without the consent of the patient and are not able to release them without that consent or a warrant/subpoena.

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't understand, sloopy. The Constitution was written in impenetrable legalese. Things like "shall not" do not mean what peasants like us think they mean. No, they mean what lawyers and judges tell us them mean, and the cops can say "fuck you, that's why."

    We're just peasants. Now quit harassing the knight before he cuts off your head and rapes your wife.

  • sloopyinca||

    We're just peasants. Now quit harassing the knight before he cuts off your head and rapes your wife.

    Banjos? Doubtful. Besides, I think he'll be tied up for a while with the world tour him and the band are about to embark on...after the Banzai Pipeline event wraps up next week, of course.

  • R C Dean||

    I've always understood medical records to belong to the patient with the doctor's office or pharmacist acting as custodian of them.

    No, they are the property of the healthcare provider who creates them.

  • Ted S.||

    Who owns your records of what books you take out from a library? (Assuming you use such dated technologies.)

  • Ted S.||

    Since fuck you, that's why.

  • R C Dean||

    it was not illegal. the case was successfully prosecuted and no objection was made to the pharmacy info nor was their any judicial notice that it was ILLEGAL.

    If they gave it to you without getting a warrant or subpoena or other similar "process", they gave it to you illegally.

    The ex post facto conviction doesn't change that, nor does the lack of objection to, or the judge's apathy/ignorance about, this violation of medical privacy laws.

    I do this for a living, dunphy, so you can take my word for it: it is illegal to release a patient's medical records to a cop for an investigation of the patient without any form of process. I've bumped uglies with cops, detectives, and DAs on this, and they've had to admit, every time, that they have to give me a warrant or subpoena.

    Which are so laughably easy to get, I can only chalk up their reluctance to do so to sheer laziness.

  • sarcasmic||

    I've bumped uglies with cops, detectives, and DAs on this

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bump_uglies

    Do their spouses know about this?

  • sloopyinca||

    If they gave it to you without getting a warrant or subpoena or other similar "process", they gave it to you illegally.

    I reckon he won't be back. It's easier for him to respond to me and make false claims of righteousness since I'm not a health care attorney.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    One paragraph that caught my eye while getting a flu shot at Walgreens:

    National Security, Intelligence Activities, and Protective Services for the President and Others. We may release PHI about you to federal officials for intelligence, counterintelligence, protection to the President, and other national security activities authorized by law.

    http://www.walgreens.com/topic.....ctices.jsp

    PHI = protected health information

  • ||

    i asked the pharmacist why i didn't need a warrant. he said that it was the corporate policy to release that info upon law enforcement request and assurance that it was reference a criminal investigation.

    you would think they'd be more protective of patient records. ime, dr's are, but pharmacists not so much

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm sure you corrected him and told him that the law protects the patients' rights to privacy and that while releasing those records may be in accordance with policy, it is at odds with the law unless they got prior written consent from their patients that they were waiving their rights to privacy if they got scripts filled there.

    Nah. That would have kept you from busting that punk-ass kid in the head and would have also kept you from your illegal source of information so you can perpetuate the immoral drug war in the name of the state. After all, without the drug war, people like you wouldn't be needed very much.

  • sarcasmic||

    But he's not like the others. He said so.

  • ||

    i'm like those who do their job well.

    a warrant was not required, so i did not apply for one

    the frigging defense attorney didn't even challenge because he KNEW a warrant wasn't required and it's a waste of time.

    as usual, the armchair legal "experts" at reason.com think they know the law when they don't.

    you can keep using the word "illegal" as in "illegal source of information" but it just makes you look like a fool, since it wasn't illegal.

    i write plenty of search warrants. sometimes , i even write them when they are not required (See: CYA). but not in this case. my actions were upheld by the courts. feel free to come to WA state, which already has much broader privacy protections than the federal constitution (no pretext, no search incident to arrest of motor vehicles, restricted curtilage searches, enhanced automatic standing on searches etc.) and get laffed out of court in your arguments

    i'll continue to ethically and diligently do my duty.

    and whatever one thinks of the WOD, if chucklenuts is indiscriminately selling C-II amphetamines to minors (high school kids), he deserves investigation.

  • sarcasmic||

    as usual, the armchair legal "experts" at reason.com think they know the law when they don't.

    We have enough rudimentary reading skills to understand that the vast majority of legislation out there is in flagrant violation of the Constitution.

    Yes we are not trained in using nuance and creative interpretation to get around the plain meaning of things like "shall not," but I think that is a good thing.

  • Ted S.||

    as usual, the armchair legal "experts" at reason.com think they know the law when they don't.
    Some of these people Dunphy derides with sneer quotes are actually health care attorneys.

  • sloopyinca||

    i'm like those who do their job well.

    Hey, the Jap guards on the Bataan Death March did their job well, too. That doesn't mean they did it morally or legally. But those terms don't matter as much to those that wear the Badge or have qualified immunity.

  • General Butt Naked||

    if chucklenuts is indiscriminately selling C-II amphetamines to minors (high school kids), he deserves investigation.

    Actually, if you don't support the drug war you wouldn't think he deserves investigation.

  • Ted S.||

    Are you just humoring him, Sloopy, or do you really think he asked the pharmacist that?

  • R C Dean||

    it was the corporate policy to release that info upon law enforcement request and assurance that it was reference a criminal investigation.

    A clear violation of HIPAA, and I have little doubt of state medical privacy laws.

  • Ted S.||

    Now, now, RC Dean. Why on earth would you think you know more than a cop about medical privacy laws? :-)

    [/sarcasm]

  • sloopyinca||

    He's making this statement because he's part of the bigorati, Ted. It has nothing to do with his area of legal expertise of his Harvard Law education.

  • ||

    i've noticed a massive difference dr. to dr. in terms of how willing they are to write pain pill meds (how much, etc.). WA passed a pretty restrictive law last year regarding pain meds, but i had no problem whatsoever getting high dose dilaudid from my doctor. i have a high tolerance, so need more meds than most other people. she was very understanding. it's essentially luck of the draw. but these dr's are legitimately afraid of having the C-II especially prescriptions monitored by DEA

  • sloopyinca||

    It probably also doesn't hurt that you have a badge, so the doc doesn't fear writing a higher dosage to a member of the State's Monopoly on Violence.

    I wonder if she treated you the same as the guy with chronic pain that doesn't carry a gun for the state.

  • sarcasmic||

    "We see you issued a rather large scrip to this patient."

    "He's a cop."

    "Oh. Sorry to have taken up your time."

  • ||

    ah yes. yet another unsupported double standard claim. color me unsurprised.

  • sarcasmic||

    says the guy who comes up with excuses for every supported double standard claim. color me unsurprised.

  • Ted S.||

    You might wish to read this comment upthread et sqq.

    (Granted, it's a judge, not a cop, but the point stands that Agents of the State are treated differently from The Rest of Us.)

  • sarcasmic||

    (Granted, it's a judge, not a cop, but the point stands that Agents of the State are treated differently from The Rest of Us.)

    Generally he will insist that a peasant would have, for a first offense, been treated the same way.

    Funny though. In my state if you get a DUI you lose your license for a minimum of six months. Unless you're a cop. Over the last year two local cops were in the paper getting DUIs, and both retained both their jobs and their license to drive.

    But there's no double standard. Only bigots who don't know the truth.

  • General Butt Naked||

    ah yes. yet another unsupported double standard claim. color me unsurprised.

    Says the guy on dilaudid that throws people in jail for drugs.

  • Rich||

  • sloopyinca||

    So the DEA have acknowledged that they have to get some type of subpoena to obtain these records, but dunphy still says it's completely unnecessary?

    It's a shame when people tasked with upholding the law don't even know the basic tenets of the Fourth Amendment. It's not surprising, but it's a shame, nonetheless.

  • sarcasmic||

    Since when did the law have to uphold the Constitution?

  • ||

    i have made no commentary on the above case, despite sloopy's lie to contrary. the facts are distinguishable from my case.

    in my case, the pharmacist had a right to REQUIRE a warrant. he CHOSE not to ask for one.

    here, the DEA is advocating for the right to do such searches and NOT allow the pharmacists such a right

  • sloopyinca||

    Listen, dumbass. Even the DEA believe there is a warrant/subpoena requirement, which is why they're trying to broaden the scope of situations covered by administrative subpoenas (so they don't actually have to show legit probable cause to a judge). Are you telling me that the DEA doesn't know the law here? Or don't you know how to read?

  • R C Dean||

    in my case, the pharmacist had a right to REQUIRE a warrant. he CHOSE not to ask for one.

    HIPAA does not give pharmacists the option to release medical records to cops investigating the patient without a warrant.

    I understand that the 4A allows him to do so, but HIPAA does not.

  • sloopyinca||

    But there's no double-standard in prosecuting the drug war when a "warrior" is on the wrong side of the law.

    I guess conspiracy charges are for little people.

  • Adam.||

    Yet another reason to go straight to the black market.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Precautionary principle libertarians (with badges) are the only true libertarians.

    And don't you forget it.

  • sloopyinca||

    We should have dunphy just walk into Ray Lewis's pharmacy and ask for his medical records. He'll get them without a warrant or subpoena and we can find out if he's been usinf PED's on the road to the Super Bowl.

  • Brandon||

    If he has been, I want to know what they are. And I want them. Because fuck, healing that quickly and effectively from a torn triceps is frankly awesome.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It takes a REAL libertarian to lock you in a cage for your own good.

  • Lincoln||

    Are there stipulations preventing a HIPAA defense? Even if they get your medical records how do they share them with the courts or prosecutors without violating HIPAA?

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, there's always the "Fuck You That's Why" stipulation that says a cop can obtain medical records without a warrant or subpoena and they will be admissible in court. It's known in the Pacific northwest as the "Dunphy Rule," apparently. Of course, nobody knows it exists outside the confines of an addled brain, but there you go.

  • General Butt Naked||

    These stories piss me off to no end.

    My dad has been really sick of the past couple of years, and after a few surgeries the most he can squeeze out of his doc/PA is 30 vicodin now and again. They basically tell him to deal with the pain, even though he's incapacitated by pain.

    I'm tempted to invent a deity to pray to that would give these neo-puritan fucks a particularly nasty case of bone cancer; not to mention, medical providers cut from the same cloth.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Get a voodoo doll. As you are an atheist whether or not it causes any harm to the target will not be a concern for you ethically (because you know it won't), but it will make YOU feel better. :)

  • waaminn||

    Lets pump it on up dude, Wow.

    www.irAnon.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement