OH8: Writ of prohibition doesn’t lie to block search warrant issued with jurisdiction

A writ of prohibition is not a proper remedy to object to a search warrant. Here, the police got a search warrant for medical records from a hospital 12 days after a shooting victim was treated. State ex rel. Parma Cmty. Gen. Hosp., 2013 Ohio 2923, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 2969 (8th Dist. July 1, 2013):

[*P3] On May 22, 2013, Parma police obtained a search warrant from the respondent judge for the medical records, test results, medical bills and any other documents from Parma Community Hospital for the treatment of Aaron Davies on May 10, 2013. The hospital commenced this prohibition action to stop the enforcement of the search warrant. The hospital argues that R.C. Chapter 2933, which governs search warrants, does not provide a basis for searches and seizures of hospital records, and that the subject search warrant violates R.C. 2317.02, privileged communications, and the Fourth Amendment.

[*P4] A writ of prohibition, however, is not the proper remedy to pursue. The principles governing prohibition are well established. Its requisites are (1) the respondent against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial power, (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and (3) there is no adequate remedy at law. … Prohibition will not lie unless it clearly appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the cause that it is attempting to adjudicate or the court is about to exceed its jurisdiction. … “The writ will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, or to serve the purpose of appeal, or to correct mistakes of the lower court in deciding questions within its jurisdiction.” … Furthermore, it should be used with great caution and not issue in a doubtful case. … Nevertheless, when a court is patently and unambiguously without jurisdiction to act whatsoever, the availability or adequacy of a remedy is immaterial to the issuance of a writ of prohibition. … Absent such a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action has authority to determine its own jurisdiction. … Moreover, the court has discretion in issuing the writ of prohibition. State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott, 36 Ohio St.2d 127, 304 N.E.2d 382 (1973).

[*P5] In the present case, Crim.R. 41(B) granted the respondent judge the authority to issue the warrant. … Furthermore, “trial courts have the requisite jurisdiction to decide issues of privilege; thus extraordinary relief in prohibition will not lie to correct any errors in decisions of these issues.” … At the very least, the trial judge has sufficient jurisdiction to determine her own jurisdiction, and prohibition will not lie.

[*P6] Nor has the petitioner convinced this court that there is no adequate remedy at law. …

Was it heavy-handed and an obnoxious use of power for the government to use a search warrant? Yes. But it is not completely without jurisdiction. Therefore, no writ of prohibition.

What if the hospital said: “Find it yourself, officer”? The officers couldn’t have found it, would have violated the rights of others whose hospital files were looked at in the search, and the hospital staff would ultimately have to look for it for them, which is what would happen under a subpoena. One would think that the Parma P.D. just wants the people in their community to dislike them. Never heard of a subpoena? You’re not going to get it any faster with a search warrant.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.