ACLU: A Federal Court Says Your Prescription Records Aren’t Really Private. The Supreme Court Might Have Something to Say About That.

ACLU: A Federal Court Says Your Prescription Records Aren’t Really Private. The Supreme Court Might Have Something to Say About That. by Brett Max Kaufman, Staff Attorney, ACLU Center for Democracy:

When you fill a prescription at your local drug store, you would surely bristle at someone behind you peeking over your shoulder — but in a decision issued last week, a federal court in Utah said that you have no Fourth Amendment right to object when the peeker is the United States government.

You read that correctly: In a case challenging the Drug Enforcement Administration’s warrantless access to patient prescription records stored in a secure state database, the court relied in part on an outdated legal doctrine to rule that a “patient in Utah decides to trust a prescribing physician with health information to facilitate a diagnosis,” and thereby “takes the risk . . . that his or her information will be conveyed to the government.”

That’s hard to swallow — and it helps make very clear the huge stakes of our upcoming Supreme Court argument in United States v. Carpenter, which concerns the role of the so-called “third-party doctrine” in opening up all kinds of sensitive records to warrantless searches by police.

(Hyperlink added)

This entry was posted in Third Party Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.