State v. Myers
2015 Ohio 160
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In April 2013 Detective Dennis Luken (Greater Warren County Drug Task Force) opened an investigation into Wilmington police officer Melissa Myers after her supervisor relayed a physician's allegation that Myers was "doctor-shopping."
- Luken ran a warrantless query of the Ohio Automated Rx Reporting System (OARRS) and obtained Myers' prescription history (prescribers, pharmacies, dates, drugs). He complied with OARRS request procedures but did not obtain Myers' consent or a warrant.
- Luken converted the OARRS data into a spreadsheet and sent it to Myers' listed physicians and pharmacies; several physicians stated they would not have prescribed had they known of other prescriptions.
- Myers was indicted on seven counts of deception to obtain a dangerous drug (R.C. 2925.22(A)). She moved to suppress evidence from the OARRS query and to dismiss the indictment based on unrecorded grand jury proceedings and alleged privilege issues.
- The trial court granted suppression, concluding Myers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in OARRS records and that a warrant was required; it denied dismissal for lack of recorded grand jury minutes.
- On appeal the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the suppression ruling (finding no reasonable expectation of privacy) and affirmed denial of dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless OARRS query implicates the Fourth Amendment | State: No reasonable expectation of privacy in OARRS records; access authorized by statute/regulation | Myers: Had a reasonable expectation of privacy in prescription records (and physician-patient privilege) so warrant required | Court: No reasonable expectation of privacy; warrantless access under R.C. 4729.80(A)(2) did not violate Fourth Amendment |
| Whether administrative-search or good-faith exceptions apply | State: Even if expectation exists, statutory administrative scheme and good-faith reliance on OARRS rules justify access | Myers: Targeted criminal investigation makes administrative exception inapplicable; privacy stronger for physician-patient communications | Court: Declined to reach exceptions because Fourth Amendment not implicated after holding no reasonable expectation of privacy |
| Whether physician-patient privilege prevented use of OARRS-derived evidence before grand jury | Myers: Grand jury relied on privileged communications; recordings would show privilege violations | State: Communications were fraudulent or omissions not protected; privilege does not bar evidence of criminal deception | Court: Privilege does not attach to communications that further fraud; no particularized need shown based on privilege claim |
| Whether failure to record grand jury proceedings required dismissal | Myers: Unrecorded proceedings prevented review and may conceal inconsistencies in testimony | State: No showing of particularized need for transcripts; error is harmless absent such showing | Court: Denial of dismissal affirmed because Myers failed to show particularized need that outweighs grand jury secrecy |
Key Cases Cited
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (state prescription records statute did not violate privacy interests where access was limited and nondisclosure was required)
- Stone v. Stow, 64 Ohio St.3d 156 (1992) (Ohio Supreme Court held patients and physicians had no reasonable expectation of privacy against disclosure to law enforcement under statutory scheme)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (administrative-search doctrine and role of regulatory schemes addressing social problems)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (two-part test for reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) (Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches)
- State v. Lawson, 64 Ohio St.3d 336 (1992) (failure to record grand jury proceedings constitutes harmless error absent particularized need)