State v. Crumbley
143 So. 3d 1059
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In 2011, Pasco County Sheriff's Office seized patient medical records from Harbour Medical Group under a search warrant during a probe of the clinic for unlicensed operation.
- The warrant authorized seizure of patient medical records, prescription records, and related items; 20 boxes of patient files were seized and 855 patients were identified.
- The records were of patients who were not targets of the investigation, and no patient-specific probable cause supported a warrant for their records at the time of seizure.
- A privacy hearing was held (April 30, 2012); some patients objected to review of their records; Judge Gardner presided, but later recused and Judge Babb issued sealing orders.
- Judge Babb entered an order sealing all seized patient medical records and directing notice to affected patients; a second order required the court reporter to preserve the hearing record in sealed form.
- The State appealed arguing the orders suppressed evidence; the trial court found lack of probable cause for patient-specific records and emphasized patient privacy rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appealable order reviewable as a suppression order? | Crumbley contends the orders suppress/seal evidence and are appealable under 9.140(c)(1)(B). | Crumbley argues patients are necessary parties and that the order is nonfinal/nonappealable, undermining review. | Yes; the orders are reviewable as orders suppressing evidence and sealing records. |
| May a warrant for patient records issue without patient-specific probable cause when pursuing non-patient targets? | State argues probable cause for patients is unnecessary when records relate to investigation of others. | Crumbley contends patient-specific probable cause was required to seize their records. | Warrant did not require patient-specific probable cause; records may be relevant to third-party criminal investigation. |
| How should privacy rights and regulatory statutes govern access to seized medical records? | State maintains records were lawfully seized and lawful access should be allowed with appropriate safeguards. | Crumbley emphasizes patients’ privacy rights under Fla. Const. art. I §23 and §456.057(7). | Remand for a limited, least-intrusive access framework balancing privacy rights and prosecution needs. |
| What remedy is appropriate on remand to protect patient privacy while allowing prosecution? | State seeks access with reasonable safeguards; no full sealing without review. | Privacy rights warrant extensive protection and potential exclusion of records from prosecution. | Remand to fashion a procedure (e.g., special court officer or experts) ensuring limited access and privacy protections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullis v. State, 79 So. 3d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (privacy and disclosure limits under 456.056/7 governing doctor–patient records)
- Limbaugh v. State, 887 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (state can seize records by valid warrant; privacy considerations discussed)
- Rattray v. State, 903 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (third-party patient privacy vs. state's need in investigations; sealing approach favored)
- Sun v. State, 82 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (doctor-shopping and privacy in Fourth District; suppression of evidence in some contexts)
- Winfield v. D.P.R., 477 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1985) (privacy rights and the compelling state interest standard (general balancing framework))
- Tamulonis v. State, 39 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (privacy rights balancing under Florida law)