State v. Sun
82 So. 3d 866
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Deputy, during a DUI stop of Sun’s brother, found a notebook suggesting doctor shopping and handed it to Detective Keith.
- Detective Keith obtained Sun’s patient profiles from multiple pharmacies without warrants or subpoenas and compared them for patterns within 30 days.
- Detective Keith contacted three prescribing physicians, who each confirmed Sun’s treatment and provided signed patient contracts, all without warrants or subpoenas.
- Sun was charged with oxycodone trafficking and withholding information from a practitioner related to doctor shopping.
- Sun moved to suppress the patient contracts, doctors’ statements, and pharmacy records; the trial court suppressed the contracts and statements but not the pharmacy records.
- The state appealed the suppression of medical records; Sun cross-appealed the denial of suppression of the pharmacy records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the medical records privilege apply to patient contracts? | Sun argues privacy/privilege shields contracts. | State argues limited privacy should yield in pursuit of crime. | Yes; contracts are medical records protected by §456.057(7)(a). |
| Does the doctor-patient privilege cover doctors’ statements to police? | Sun asserts statements were privileged and improperly obtained. | State argues broad privilege covers disclosures in pursuit of investigation. | Yes; statements were privileged under §456.057(8) and not properly disclosed. |
| Was suppression proper given lack of statutory compliance and lack of good faith? | Sun contends suppression would be improper if good faith existed. | State argues no suppression for pharmacy records; law allows broad disclosure without subpoena. | Suppression affirmed for medical records due to lack of good faith compliance. |
| Did the cross-appeal require suppression of pharmacy records? | Sun contends pharmacy records should be suppressed as obtained without subpoena. | State relies on §893.07(4) allowing non-subpoenaed access to pharmacy records. | Pharmacy records not suppressed; statute authorized their collection without subpoena. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shukitis, 60 So.3d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (defines medical records scope under 456.057(6))
- Acosta v. Richter, 671 So.2d 149 (Fla. 1996) (creates broad physician–patient confidentiality privilege)
- State v. Rutherford, 707 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (balance of privacy vs. access under 456.057)
- Castillo-Plaza v. Green, 655 So.2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (premise of broad privilege later endorsed by Acosta)
- Johnson, 814 So.2d 390 (Fla. 2002) (privacy rights may yield to compelling state interest)
- Ady v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 675 So.2d 577 (Fla. 1996) (strict construction of statutes derogating common law)
- State v. White, 660 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1995) (exclusionary rule considerations for police conduct)