Mullis v. State
79 So. 3d 747
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Detective Fowler investigated Mullis for doctor shopping after blast fax responses from about eighty pharmacies identified Mullis had filled oxycodone prescriptions from six doctors within 30 days.
- Pharmacy profiles showed Mullis obtained approximately 4,102 (or 4,150 per transcript) oxycodone pills over six months, prompting further inquiry.
- Detective Fowler spoke with doctors or their staff, asking (1) to confirm Mullis’s identity by driver’s license and (2) whether Mullis had disclosed obtaining opioids from other doctors within 30 days.
- Offices confirmed Mullis was a patient, Mullis was identified by driver’s license, and Mullis did not disclose concurrent prescriptions; doctors indicated they would not have prescribed if they knew of other sources.
- The circuit court denied Mullis’s motion to suppress the pharmacy records and the doctors’ statements; Mullis pled guilty while reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- The appellate court must decide whether the pharmacy records and the doctors’ statements were lawfully obtained and whether suppression is required for the statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pharmacy records were lawfully obtained without a warrant. | Mullis | Mullis | Yes; records were lawfully obtained under §893.07(4). |
| Whether statements obtained from Mullis's doctors violated §456.057(7)(a) and privacy rights. | Mullis | Mullis | No to denial of suppression; but held that most statements were reports relating to examination or treatment and should be suppressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tamulonis, 39 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (allows warrantless access to controlled-substance records under §893.07(4))
- State v. Johnson, 814 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2002) (privacy rights balanced with procedural safeguards in medical records)
- State v. Shukitis, 60 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (physician-patient information and records as related to treatment)
- State v. Herc, 67 So. 3d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (classification of statements as medical records for §456.057(6) purposes)
- State v. Carter, 23 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (repository of records and notice considerations under §893.07)