State v. Huse, 491 S.W.3d 833

In Feb 2010 Huse crashed; hospital drew blood for treatment (4:50 a.m.) showing BAC .219; he later refused a police blood/breath test.
The prosecutor obtained Huse’s hospital records via a grand jury subpoena duces tecum (March 30, 2010); records were delivered to the DA’s office with a business-records affidavit.
Huse was charged by information, moved to suppress; charges were dismissed and later refiled; a second grand jury subpoena issued (Oct. 5, 2011) and the hospital again provided the same records to the DA.
Trial court suppressed all medical records under the Fourth Amendment and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 38.23, finding HIPAA created an expectation of privacy and that the subpoena process was misused.
Court of Appeals reversed, holding Hardy controls (no Fourth Amendment standing to challenge records of privately taken BAC tests) and that the second subpoena cured any defect; the State appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals: HIPAA does not undermine Hardy’s narrow holding; the first grand jury subpoena was lawful so Article 38.23 exclusion was not triggered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HIPAA changes Hardy’s rule on Fourth Amendment standing to challenge state acquisition of privately obtained BAC records	Huse: HIPAA creates a legislated privacy expectation in medical records that gives him standing to challenge the State’s acquisition	State: Hardy remains controlling; HIPAA contains exceptions (e.g., grand jury subpoena) and does not confer Fourth Amendment standing here	Court: No — HIPAA does not disturb Hardy’s narrow holding; no reasonable expectation of privacy in privately obtained post-accident BAC results sufficient to bar government acquisition via subpoena
Whether the State’s grand jury subpoena process violated HIPAA or Texas law such that Article 38.23 exclusion applies	Huse: Subpoenas were defective/abusive (no actual grand jury involvement; improper use to obtain prosecution evidence), so records were unlawfully obtained	State: Subpoenas (especially the second, signed by the foreman) were valid; HIPAA permits disclosure pursuant to a grand jury subpoena; Article 38.23 inapplicable	Court: First subpoena was lawful under state law and HIPAA’s subpoena exception; because records were lawfully obtained, Article 38.23 exclusion does not apply

State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (narrow holding that privately obtained hospital BAC results are not protected by Fourth Amendment standing)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (Fourth Amendment protects people, not places)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978) (standing to challenge searches is personal; third-party disclosure limits standing)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1984) (government testing of privately exposed evidence may not constitute a Fourth Amendment search)
Skinner v. Railway Labor Exec. Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (Fourth Amendment generally does not apply to searches by private parties)
United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1974) (grand jury’s investigative power is broad and not constrained by trial evidentiary rules)