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