Pubdate: Sat, 29 Jan 2005
Source: Palm Beach Post, The (FL)
Copyright: 2005 The Palm Beach Post
Contact:  http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/333
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?232 (Chronic Pain)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Rush+Limbaugh

CRIST ON THE SIDELINES

Apparently, Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist would rather
observe the Rush Limbaugh case than be part of it.

This week, Mr. Crist's office filed a brief with the Florida Supreme
Court, which is considering whether to hear the talk-show host's
latest argument that the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office
improperly obtained his medical records. In July, the 4th District
Court of Appeal upheld prosecutors' use of a search warrant, rather
than a subpoena, as part of their investigation into whether Mr.
Limbaugh broke the state's "doctor-shopping" law to get illegal
amounts of painkillers. Mr. Limbaugh, who lives in Palm Beach, entered
treatment for painkiller addiction in late 2003.

Normally, the attorney general's office actively defends state laws
before appeals courts. But the office is not helping county
prosecutors and, according to State Attorney Barry Krischer, doesn't
intend to. Since Mr. Limbaugh has accused Mr. Krischer, a Democrat, of
mounting a political investigation, it's fair to ask why Mr. Crist, a
Republican elected in 2002, doesn't involve his office in the fight to
make sure suspects can't use medical records to hide potential evidence.

In the 4th DCA's ruling, two of three judges ruled for the state
attorney. The third said prosecutors should examine the records in
private with a judge. Mr. Crist, through Solicitor General Christopher
Kise, basically agrees with all three. Mr. Crist told MSNBC that he
had struck a "fair balance." In fact, Mr. Krischer has been in favor
or that compromise all along.

Ideally, the Florida Supreme Court won't even hear the case. In his
brief, Mr. Limbaugh's attorney makes no new arguments. He claims that
the 4th DCA "misconstrued" the law in allowing the search warrant,
contending that the state requires a subpoena. Actually, the search
warrant requires a higher threshold than a subpoena, as the appeals
court noted. Two judges had to approve it.

The case is very simple: Privacy rules do not allow patients to hide
possible evidence. You would think the attorney general would back up
prosecutors on that point.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake