Hendley v. State
58 So. 3d 296
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hendley was charged with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud based on a fraudulent oxycodone prescription at Hedges Pharmacy.
- Detectives obtained Hendley’s prescription records without a warrant, subpoena, or patient notice under section 893.07(4).
- Hendley moved to suppress all records obtained, arguing Fourth Amendment privacy rights and sections 395.3025(4)(d) and 465.017(2)(a).
- The circuit court denied the suppression motion, citing section 893.07(4) as authorizing access to records.
- The issue on appeal is whether section 893.07(4) overrides 465.017(2)(a) and whether Hendley had standing to challenge the seizure of the prescription.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 893.07(4) authorizes seizure without warrant | Hendley: records were obtained without warrant, subpoena, or notice. | State: section 893.07(4) permits access by law enforcement for controlled substances. | Yes; 893.07(4) authorizes police to obtain records without warrant. |
| Whether section 465.017(2)(a) required subpoena/notice for pharmacy records | Hendley: privacy right requires subpoena/notice under 465.017(2)(a). | State: 465.017(2)(a) not controlling for pharmacies; 893.07(4) governs. | 465.017(2)(a) does not bar access under 893.07(4). |
| Standing to challenge seizure of fraudulent prescription | Hendley contends he has standing to challenge the seizure. | State: no standing because no privacy interest in fraudulent prescription. | Hendley lacked standing; no reasonable expectation of privacy in fraudulent prescription. |
| Appropriate remedy given undisputed facts | Remand for standing development if needed. | No remand; records properly obtained under 893.07(4). | Affirmed denial of suppression; no remand needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamolunis v. State, 39 So.3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (interplay between 465.017 and 893.07; 893.07(4) authorizes access without warrant or notice)
- Shukitis v. State, 60 So.3d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (privacy interest in prescription records acknowledged; 893.07(4) narrowly tailored)
- Bean v. State, 36 So.3d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (pharmacy records exception to 395.3025 not applicable to pharmacies)