District Court Says DEA's Warrantless Access Of Oregon's Prescription Database Is Unconstitutional

from the the-War-on-Drugs-has-no-time-for-your-outdated-'rights' dept

Early last year, the news surfaced that the DEA was bypassing Oregon state law by using administrative subpoenas to get around the state’s warrant requirement for drug prescription database access. “Administrative subpoenas” are yet another government tool that allows agencies to seek information that would normally require a warrant, but without the hassle of running it past a judge or even showing probable cause.

The DEA probably didn’t expect to encounter much resistance to its subpoenas. After all, drugs are bad and the DEA is fighting the good fight. But the state of Oregon wasn’t impressed with the DEA’s warrantless tactics and filed suit with the assistance of the ACLU. The ACLU is now reporting that a federal judge has ruled in its (and Oregon’s favor) and the DEA (along with other law enforcement entities) will no longer be able to skirt the state’s warrant requirement.

For the first time, a federal judge has ruled that patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their drug prescription records, and that law enforcement must obtain a warrant in order to search such information…

“This is a victory for privacy and for the constitutional rights of anyone who ever gets drug prescriptions,” said ACLU Staff Attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who argued the case last month. “The ruling recognizes that confidential medical records are entitled to the full protection of the Fourth Amendment. The court rightly rejected the federal government’s extreme argument that patients give up their privacy rights by receiving medical treatment from doctors and pharmacists.”

As the ruling points out, citizens have long associated privacy with medical treatment, something that has gone hand-in-hand dating back to the 4th century B.C.E. and the origin of the Hippocratic Oath. It also points out the obvious: federal law itself (HIPAA) contains built-in privacy protections. (Hence the form you have to sign, the privacy info sheet you’re handed on every visit, and signs everywhere telling you to stand behind them for the privacy of the patient in front of you.)

The judge’s decision also notes that stripping away this expectation of privacy will have a chilling effect on those seeking medical care, something that could have very adverse effects on the health of people who might avoid seeking treatment because they fear their medical records will be exposed.

As the ACLU notes in its press release, it’s not exactly happy the state of Oregon has chosen to create a centralized database of drug prescriptions, but, if it is going to do so, it has at least chosen to take the privacy of those contained in the database very seriously.

This decision strikes a small blow against the government’s routine abuse of “exceptions” to warrant requirements as well as against its even more routine abuse of the “third party doctrine,” which the DEA actually used to claim that talking to a doctor is no different than dialing a phone. The DEA knows there’s a huge difference between these two “third parties” but applying that knowledge means showing probable cause and getting a judge to sign off on the warrant, two aspects it apparently feels only hampers its War on Drugs.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “District Court Says DEA's Warrantless Access Of Oregon's Prescription Database Is Unconstitutional”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
17 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Given that technology likely makes this significantly easier from an administrative perspective than any other time in history, I can only think of the following reasons:

– Lazy DEA agents
– Lack of reading/writing/communication skills
– Weak/no case
– A judge would likely NOT grant the warrant
– They would prefer to not be scrutinized
– Questionable methods use during investigation
– General incompetence
– Lack of any civics training
– Lack of respect for the Constitution
– Contempt for the general populace
– Self-righteous attitude, common with members of law enforcement

I could go on and on and on…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Warrents

If the official obtained a warrant they would have to outline their suspicions, supporting evidence, swear that the information supplied was true, and accept personal responsibly for errors & mistakes, without warrants the state bears the responsibility for errors.
So more taxpayer money spent on compensation, less on roads, schools, health, fire, police, military, etc. we taxpayers pay when police make a mistake, we pay more when a corrupt official can abuse the system, without leaving a trace in the system,

So Warrants get in the way of the dishonest official and that the problem with them

Anonymous Coward says:

Yeah, sounds like Oregon has an equivalent of Virginia’s prescription drug monitoring program. For reference:

http://www.dhp.virginia.gov/dhp_programs/pmp/pmp_desc.asp

Highly useful for checking to see if a patient seeking narcotics is on the up and up so you can just tell them no. Or dismiss them from the practice.

Sounds like the DEA was trying to get access whenever they wanted, instead of only getting access when they have an open investigation and a warrant. Good to hear they didn’t get it. The point of these programs is to curb prescription abuse, not to make it easy to find people to prosecute.

Guest Lawyer says:

Correction to Headline

While this is a good decision, unfortunately, it is not a Ninth Circuit decision (which, if published, would have precedential, binding value)–it is merely a district court decision (while sometimes persuasively cited by attorneys and courts, these types of decisions’ holdings have no actual legally binding value). It is likely that this case will result in an appeal to the Ninth Circuit which, if that appellate court agrees with the district court here, would be binding upon district courts within the circuit.

Anonymous Coward says:

This is a SHAME!!!

Now I can’t look up the pharmacy records in search of all of those hot chicks with drug addictions so I can blackmail them for some nookie!

I will have DMV cross reference their faces with the TSA full body scanner systems to help make sure I can find high quality candidates…. because… terrorism! I mean… just think of the children!!!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...