WA: HIPAA violation in seizing medical records by SW required their return

The trial court’s order denying return of patient records taken by search warrant from the petitioner youth services provider failed to comply with HIPAA requirements should have been granted. While the records have been returned and the case is otherwise moot, the court decides it in the public interest. Daybreak Youth Servs. v. Clark County Sheriff’s Office, 2021 Wash. App. LEXIS 2639 (Nov. 9, 2021).

Defendant “narrowly” showed standing to search three apartments he visited during the day, had the keys to, and had in his name although he never spent the night during the investigation. Probable cause was shown for the search warrants. United States v. Shipp, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216375 (E.D.Mo. Sept. 30, 2021).

The state court resolved this 2254 petitioner’s Strickland Fourth Amendment IAC claim against him. The state court decided the Fourth Amendment claim against him so defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not litigating it. Larkins v. Noeth, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216834 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Privileges, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.