Seizure of medical records upheld in Limbaugh case

The Washington Times ^ | October 7, 2004 | NA

[neverdem]

---

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

---

Seizure of medical records upheld in Limbaugh case

Published October 7, 2004

---

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- Rush Limbaugh's medical records were properly seized by investigators seeking information on reported illegal drug use, an appeals court ruled yesterday.

    State investigators had raided the offices of Mr. Limbaugh's doctors seeking information on whether the conservative radio commentator illegally tried to buy prescription painkillers. Mr. Limbaugh, 53, has not been charged with a crime and the investigation had been at a standstill pending a decision on the medical records.

    "We hold that the constitutional right of privacy in medical records is not implicated by the state's seizure and review of medical records under a valid search warrant without prior notice or hearing," a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled 2-1.

    Prosecutors went after Mr. Limbaugh's medical records after learning that he reportedly received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion.

    Mr. Limbaugh admitted his addiction to pain medication last October, saying it stemmed from severe back pain. He took a five-week leave from his radio show to enter a rehabilitation program.

    A spokesman for the commentator didn't have any immediate comment, but on his radio program yesterday, Mr. Limbaugh said the ruling would be appealed.

[Patrick1]

first I've seen this posted here..LOL

[wideawake]

It's been posted here several times.

[Banjoguy]

Maybe you could explain to us, why this is a laughing matter?

[dmz]

in the last 10 minutes, you mean.

[newgeezer]

{grin} Yeah, it oughta be in Breaking News! </sarcasm></strong>

[CMOTB]

The privacy of medical records only applies to liberals in radio, TV, and Movies. Especially if it has to do with a drug related problem. I hope that two judges are not the end all on a decision to alter the constitutional right to privacy.

[RS]

"I hope that two judges ..."

Nope, 3 out of 3 decided that the use of search warrants was OK.

[CMOTB]

I was sure that On Limbaugh's show the other day that he said one of the judges had a decenting vote. I could be wrong, it has happened once in my life I believe :) But I'm pretty sure I heard that. The one judge he said was actually helpful in his case in her statement on her negative vote.

[RS]

I was sure that On Limbaugh's show the other day that he said one of the judges had a decenting vote. I could be wrong, it has happened once in my life I believe :) But I'm pretty sure I heard that. "

In the third Judges decent the judge also agreed with the majority as far as the use of a Search Warrant.

So yes there was a desenting vote, but not against the use of a search warrant.