925 N.W.2d 626
Minn.2019Background
- Heath Atwood was injured in an ATV accident; hospital staff drew a blood sample for medical purposes and stored an extra vial; no hospital testing was performed on that extra vial.
- A deputy secured a search warrant for the stored vial; the Minnesota BCA tested it and found a BAC of 0.155; Atwood was charged with DWI offenses.
- Atwood moved to suppress the blood sample and BCA test results, invoking Minnesota's physician-patient privilege, Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(d).
- The district court suppressed the evidence, concluding the blood sample was "information" protected by the privilege.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding a physical blood sample is not "information" under the statute; the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: under the plain meaning of "information," a blood sample itself is not protected by the statutory physician-patient privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a blood sample drawn during medical treatment is "information" under Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(d) | Atwood: A blood sample taken for treatment is information acquired by the physician and thus privileged (Heaney and related authority) | State: "Information" means communicable knowledge or facts; a physical blood vial is a material object, not information | A blood sample is not "information" under the physician-patient privilege; privilege does not bar admission of the sample or BCA test results |
| Whether prior decisions (Staat, Heaney) bind the court to treat blood samples as privileged | Atwood: Heaney and Staat support that blood samples fall within the privilege and are controlling | State: Statements in Staat and Heaney on this point are dicta and not binding; issue is one of first impression | Statements in Staat and Heaney were dicta here; court conducts de novo statutory interpretation and declines to treat them as binding |
| Whether legislative/ historical context supports reading "information" to include physical samples | Atwood: Legislative inaction after Heaney suggests stare decisis and preservation of the privilege's scope | State: Longstanding statutory language and historic definitions show "information" meant communicable knowledge, not physical samples; courts should not judicially expand statute | Court relies on historical dictionary meanings and statutory text: "information" means knowledge or communicated facts, not raw physical samples |
| Whether the court should extend privilege to objects containing data (e.g., blood, flash drives) | Atwood (and dissent): Protecting samples is necessary to preserve confidentiality of clinical information | State: Extending to objects would judicially add words to statute; Legislature can amend if desired | Court refuses to extend privilege to physical carriers of data; limits of privilege remain statutory and for Legislature to change |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394, 192 N.W.2d 192 (1971) (discusses scope of physician-patient privilege and references physical items in dicta)
- State v. Heaney, 689 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2004) (applied conflict-of-laws; stated that a blood sample taken for treatment is "information" in Minnesota, treated as nonbinding dicta here)
- Bearder v. State, 806 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 2011) (interpreting "genetic information" under Genetic Privacy Act to include blood samples; distinguished from privilege analysis)
- State v. Heinonen, 909 N.W.2d 584 (Minn. 2018) (distinguished physical sample from profile/analysis; used as analogy to separate sample from derived information)