2014 Ohio 4871
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Early morning single-car crash; Michael R. Little was found injured, smelled of alcohol, and taken to Lima Memorial Hospital where hospital staff drew blood for medical purposes.
- Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Joseph Nartker later obtained a separate blood sample and sent it to the Patrol lab; Trooper Nartker also requested the hospital’s blood-test records under Ohio Rev. Code §2317.02(B)(2)(a) / §2317.022 without a warrant.
- Little was charged with OVI and filed two motions to suppress: (1) challenging the Trooper’s warrantless blood draw and (2) challenging the police request for hospital medical records under the cited statutes and on constitutional grounds.
- The trial court denied suppression; Little pled no contest to OVI and was convicted and sentenced; he appealed solely arguing suppression error and statute constitutionality.
- The Third District Court of Appeals held Little had a reasonable expectation of privacy in hospital test results and that the statutory request did not authorize a warrantless police search of such medical records when no warrant exception applied, reversed the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Little) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police may obtain hospital blood-test records under R.C. 2317.02(B)(2)(a)/2317.022 without a warrant | Statute authorizes law enforcement to request and receive such records; hospital actions were independent medical care (not state action) and the statute is a discovery tool | Statute permits warrantless searches of private medical records, violating Fourth Amendment and privacy rights absent procedural safeguards or exigency | Court: Little has a reasonable expectation of privacy in hospital test results; statute does not authorize warrantless police search of securely stored medical records absent a warrant or recognized exception — suppression denial was erroneous |
| Whether R.C. 2317.02 and 2317.022 are facially unconstitutional | Statute is a valid legislative abrogation of physician-patient privilege in specified cases and serves investigative needs | Statute lacks safeguards and permits broad, warrantless access to medical records, violating Whalen, Ferguson, and Fourth Amendment | Court: statutes are presumptively constitutional; Little failed to prove they are unconstitutional on their face, so challenge overruled |
| Applicability of Fourth Amendment and Ferguson privacy principles to hospital test results obtained by police | Hospital’s drawing/testing is private medical care; statute and prior case law permit release to police without constitutional issue | Ferguson recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy in medical test results; McNeely requires case-by-case exigency analysis for warrant exceptions | Court: Ferguson and McNeely support that an expectation of privacy exists and warrant requirement applies to police requests for stored hospital test results absent exigency or another exception |
| Whether exclusionary rule should apply to evidence obtained under the statute | (State implied) evidence permissible under statute | Little argued suppression appropriate because police obtained records without warrant | Court majority: remanded because suppression denial was error; concurrence dissented arguing good-faith reliance on statute may bar exclusion under Krull; court did not definitively resolve exclusionary-rule application |
Key Cases Cited
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (recognition of privacy concerns in medical records; governmental disclosure limited by risk of public disclosure)
- Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy in diagnostic test results; warrantless law-enforcement-oriented testing/sharing invalidated)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (warrantless blood draws require case-specific exigency; no categorical exigency for drunk-driving blood draws)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule when officers rely on statute later held invalid)
- State v. Meyers, 146 Ohio App.3d 563 (hospital blood testing as independent medical care not state action for Fourth Amendment purposes)