678 F.3d 1110
9th Cir.2012Background
- Zhou, a former UCLA Health System research assistant, accessed patient records after termination.
- He was charged by information under HIPAA 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6(a)(2), alleging he knowingly obtained identifiable health information in violation of HIPAA.
- Zhou moved to dismiss, arguing the information did not allege knowledge that obtaining the information was illegal.
- District court denied the motion to dismiss; Zhou pled guilty conditionally and reserved the right to appeal the denial.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the misdemeanor applies to knowingly obtaining information in violation of HIPAA, without requiring knowledge that the act is illegal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowledge of illegality is required | Zhou argues the information must allege he knew it was illegal. | Zhou contends the statute requires knowledge of illegality. | Not required; knowledge of facts sufficient to obtain information suffices. |
| Scope of 'knowingly' in § 1320d-6(a)(2) | Information should reflect knowledge of illegality. | Statute requires knowledge of the act, not the law. | Knowingly applies to obtaining the information, not to knowing the law. |
| Legislative history and willfulness | Legislative history might limit the penalty to knowing violations. | No such limit; history shows broad application and no willfulness element is needed. | Plain text controls; no requirement for willfulness or knowledge of illegality. |
| Rule of lenity | Ambiguity should be resolved in defendant's favor. | Statute is unambiguous. | Rule of lenity does not apply; statute is unambiguous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985) (indictment must allege knowledge of illegality for knowledge+statutory violation)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (knowledge of the law not required to prove knowledge of the act)
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (statutory interpretation of knowledge qualifiers in context)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (distinguishes knowledge of facts from knowledge of law)
- Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006) (knowledge requirement generally concerns knowledge of the facts constituting the offense)
- United States v. Williams, 659 F.3d 1223 (2011) (statutory scope and textual interpretation guide construction)