{"id":5143,"date":"2011-04-14T07:19:08","date_gmt":"2011-01-31T08:08:06","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-01-31T08:08:06","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5143","title":{"rendered":"Cal.6th: There is a federal constitutional right of privacy in medical and psychiatric records"},"content":{"rendered":"

There is a Griswold<\/a> constitutional right of privacy in medical and psychiatric records which can only be disclosed when there is a compelling state interest, which the court finds here in a SVP case. People v. Gonzales<\/a>, 192 Cal. App. 4th 152, 120 Cal. Rptr. 3d 911 (6th Dist. 2011):<\/p>\n

Given Lifschutz<\/a> and the weight of federal and state authority cited above, we too find that the notion of substantive due process in general, and the notion of constitutionally protected zones of privacy in particular encompass a right to privacy that independently protects information generated in confidence between a patient and psychotherapist from unwarranted and unjustified intrusions by the government. We further find, however, that the constitutional protection is not absolute but may yield where disclosure serves competing state interests that outweigh the degree of intrusion disclosure would cause. More particularly, Lifschutz<\/a> teaches that compelling the disclosure of otherwise privileged psychotherapy records under an exception does not violate the right to privacy where the exception promotes an important state interest, limits disclosure to what is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of the exception, and contains, and\/or is subject to, safeguards that protect against the unwarranted and unnecessary disclosure.<\/p>\n

Here, the court compelled the disclosure of privileged information under the dangerous-person exception. (Evid. Code, \u00a7 1024.) In light of the analysis of patient-litigant exception in Lifschutz<\/a>, our discussion of the dangerous-patient exception\u2014i.e., its purpose, nature, and limited scope\u2014supports a finding that the exception is narrowly focused and justified by a compelling state interest in safety. Therefore, on its face the exception, like the patient-litigant exception, does not appear to violate the right of informational privacy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-5143","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5143","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=5143"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5143\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5143"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5143"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5143"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}