{"id":3767,"date":"2010-09-06T20:21:01","date_gmt":"2010-01-25T00:15:45","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-01-24T09:08:34","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3767","title":{"rendered":"FL2: Forged prescription from a pharmacy does not require court ordered subpoena"},"content":{"rendered":"

Forged prescription obtained from a pharmacist was not a \u201cmedical record\u201d that a court approved subpoena was required for. A new suppression hearing is required, however. State v. Bean<\/a>, 36 So. 3d 116 (Fla. App. 2d DCA 2010)*:<\/p>\n

This is not a typical suppression case in which a seizure is made without a warrant and the State has the burden to prove that it had constitutional authority to make a warrantless search and seizure. See, e.g., Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2005) (finding that the State proved exigent circumstances existed to justify warrantless entry and search of defendant’s home); Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (finding that the State failed to meet its burden of proving defendant consented to warrantless search of his mouth). In this case, Mr. Bean maintains that the pharmacist or the State violated section 456.057(7)(a)(3) and that this statutory violation justified the exclusion of the evidence. We conclude that he has the initial burden to prove the application of this statute and he has failed in that burden.<\/p>\n

Given the abbreviated nature of the hearing on the motion to suppress and the incorrect assumption of the trial court that it could resolve this matter without a full hearing, we reverse the order on appeal without prejudice to further proceedings addressing the possible suppression of this evidence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Accord: State v. Fernandez<\/a>, 36 So. 3d 120 (Fla. App. 2d DCA 2010)*:<\/p>\n

There may be merit to the State’s claim that Fernandez lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in the prescriptions if they were not in fact authorized by the doctor. Cf. Hicks, 929 So. 2d at 16 (holding that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in stolen item because he did not lawfully possess it; therefore, he was not entitled to suppression of stolen item in a prosecution for offenses relating to stolen item); Lennon, 963 So. 2d at 770 (same). However, because this specific issue was never argued to the trial court below, the trial court never made any specific factual findings regarding whether the prescriptions were authorized and, if so, whether Fernandez had a reasonable expectation of privacy in them. The parties should be given a chance to fully address this issue. See McCauley, 842 So. 2d at 900. Accordingly, we reverse the order suppressing the evidence and remand for further proceedings. If Fernandez wishes to pursue her motion to suppress, the trial court shall hold a hearing on the issue of standing, at which time Fernandez will have the burden to establish that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the prescriptions. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 130 n.1 (1978); Hicks, 929 So. 2d at 16.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant\u2019s claim he was stopped for a robbery because he was a young black male is contrary to the record that he was the age, height, and weight, and fit the clothing description of a robber of a slot machine cashier. United States v. Brown, 636 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (D. Nev. 2009) [erroneously put in 2008].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}