The Screamer
The DNC calling the shots.
Posted on 02/14/2005 1:34:15 PM PST by rface
WEST PALM BEACH -- The prosecutor investigating whether Rush Limbaugh illegally purchased prescription painkillers told the Florida Supreme Court on Monday that investigators should be allowed to review the conservative radio commentator's medical records.
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.''
``Then search warrants should never be issued and law enforcement should never be permitted to investigate criminal activity for fear that they will abuse the power granted,'' Martz wrote in a brief filed with the Florida Supreme Court. ``Such reasoning would eviscerate law enforcement's ability to protect the public and enforce the law.''
Martz added that the 4th District Court of Appeal's ruling, which said Limbaugh's privacy rights were not violated when the records were seized in 2003, should be upheld.
``Privacy rights cannot operate as an impenetrable shield to conceal, camouflage, or secrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing,'' Martz wrote.
Limbaugh and his attorney, Roy Black, had no comment on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
Police believe they are dealing with hardened criminals.
Rush might have to swallow the bitter pill of irony. (seocnd time today I used that line)
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- The prosecutor investigating whether Rush Limbaugh illegally purchased prescription painkillers told the Florida Supreme Court on Monday that investigators should be allowed to review the conservative radio commentator's medical records.
Assistant State Attorney James Martz was responding to arguments Limbaugh and his attorneys made asking that the records remain sealed. 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."
"Then search warrants should never be issued and law enforcement should never be permitted to investigate criminal activity for fear that they will abuse the power granted," Martz wrote in a brief filed with the Florida Supreme Court. "Such reasoning would eviscerate law enforcement's ability to protect the public and enforce the law."
Martz added that the 4th District Court of Appeal's ruling, which said Limbaugh's privacy rights were not violated when the records were seized in 2003, should be upheld.
"Privacy rights cannot operate as an impenetrable shield to conceal, camouflage, or secrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing," Martz wrote.
Limbaugh and his attorney, Roy Black, had no comment on Monday.
The court battle over Limbaugh's medical records has crippled the criminal investigation into his drug use for more than a year. Investigators seized the records after learning that Limbaugh received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion. They contend that Limbaugh engaged in "doctor shopping," or illegally deceived multiple doctors to receive overlapping prescriptions.
Limbaugh has maintained his innocence throughout the investigation and argues that the case threatens the privacy rights of all Floridians - a point which has drawn the support of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Limbaugh has acknowledged he became addicted to pain medication, blaming it on severe back pain. In October 2003, he took a five-week leave from his afternoon radio show to enter a rehabilitation program.
--
On the Net:
and your point would be, mr prosecutor?
The first sentence tells you where the journalista stands.
It means prosecutors must follow the will of the people as expressed in the State Statutes. Of course, in adversary system,neither side should have to trust the other.
Prosecutors are looking for evidence of guilt, not evidence of innocence.
Rush had a legitimate medical problem for which he was prescribed pain medication.
"`Privacy rights cannot operate as an impenetrable shield to conceal, camouflage, or secrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing,'' Martz wrote."
BUT, the law must provide a court substantial PROOF that a crime has been committed.
The procecutor must, in all cases, show 'just cause' in asking for and receiving a search warrant.
Suspicion of a crime, based on 'gut feelings' is not enough.
The use of the word "illegally" is the only thing I need to see, to set he Journalista's point of view.
Good point!
The DNC calling the shots.
Yep. And still no charges have been filed.
And your point is?
``Privacy rights cannot operate as an impenetrable shield to conceal, camouflage, or secrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing,'' Martz wrote."
Seems to me the fonding fathers had a thing or two to say about the government authorities breaking down your door looking for evidence of some sort of crime...sorta like fishing for evidence.
Great article.
I've always said, you learn something new from Rush every day.
That can't be said from every talk show host. And was especially evident last week when Rush was gone. Some of his guest hosts left a LOT to be desired, IMO.
You are right.
The term 'self incrimination' comes to mind.
This prosecutor needs to go back to law school.
You got that right! Rush doesn't merit an "alleged".
The prosecutors haven't charged Rush with any crime - yet. Would it be permissible, during an investigation, for prosecutors to issue a search warrant to a bank of a suspected drug dealer, to follow his transactions to find out if he misbehaved?
Or would the the prosecutor's office have to allege the crime and methods and then present that to a judge to elicit a search warrant?
Shhhhh! Do we really need him thinking he's that good? :)
****************
You're right.
Im sure he will be instructed in the 'nuances' of the law by the esteemed Florida Supreme Court.
1. Would it be permissible, during an investigation, for prosecutors to issue a search warrant to a bank of a suspected drug dealer, to follow his transactions to find out if he misbehaved?
2. Or would the the prosecutor's office have to allege the crime and methods and then present that to a judge to elicit a search warrant?
Number 2
Does anyone have a dollar figure on how much this dog and pony show is costing the good people of Florida?
Just another stupid dog and pony show, paid for by we the taxpayers one way or another.
If anything was there worth charging him over, it would have come out when they bought off the maid. Obviously that wasn't enough, and I presume it wasn't enough for a judge to sign off on a warrant to seize the records, either. Otherwise, why risk doing it without a warrant? It doesn't make sense.
Here point is this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329283/posts
Her point is also this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1226407/posts
There must be probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the target of the investigation was the one who participated in committing it. It must be more than a suspician based on the fact that someone is a nefareous character.
The investigation must find at least a sufficient basis for obtaining a warrant.
In this case, I believe that the fact of the warrant was not the issue, it was that there is a state statute that specifically required notification of the target of the investigastion when it related to medical records, in particular, so that the target of the investigation could apply to the court before his confidential medical records were reviewed.
but he was buying the drugs illegally. if any of us attempted to do the same with controlled substances we'd be in the slammer by now.
Save that. It's a rarity. :)
It doesn't matter what Rush thinks! It matters what WE think! :)
Thank you both.
Here you go. Any thoughts? This one came from WindOracle
And your evidence that he was buying drugs illegally is what?
The want Rush out and will stoop to any means to accomplish it! They are so sad.
Allot of good people become addicted to those painkillers. Was Rush wrong? Yes. Should he go to prison? No.
I doubt you or I would go to prison over that.
I know. I was using a bit of sarcasm. We determine whether he continues or not. And I don't see too many people jumping ship. How about you?
I'm not jumping! he's the only one I learn anything from. I tell that to others as well.
Let me put it this way, I HATE football, yet I can happily listen to Rush talk about football.
This is why he matters and why the left hates him so:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329283/posts
Bump
The interesting thing about this prosecutors statement is that he wants Rush to throw away his rights, just so he can find evidence he can use against him.
His 'privacy' statement is very telling in that, if he were prosecuting Al Capone during the prohibition years, he would have found out that 'privacy' triumphs over 'states rights'.
I can be the worst criminal in the world, but unless you have 'hard facts' based on solid evidence, my 'rights' will win out everytime.
Now you've completely lost my respect. :) Hehehehe! I'm only kidding!
And you're right on a serious note.
Why do you say that? Rush has never been a JBT fanboy, unlike the Drug War cherleaders that sometimes show up here.
The list of drugs and the dates they were purchased was attached to the affidavit for the search warrant. The amounts and dates overlap and is prima facia evidence of doctor shopping, a crime under florida law.
Um, the prosecutor already found the evidence he needs, Rush and Roy Black are trying to keep it out of Rush's criminal trial.
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.