老澳门开奖结果

I will be in federal district court in Oregon today for oral argument in the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 challenge to the Drug Enforcement Administration鈥檚 practice of obtaining Oregon patients鈥� confidential prescription records without a warrant. We represent patients and a doctor whose prescriptions are tracked in the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), a state database intended as a public health tool to help doctors and pharmacists avoid and treat drug overdoses and abuse by their patients. Although Oregon law requires police to get a probable cause warrant from a judge before requesting PDMP records in an investigation, the DEA refuses, and instead uses administrative subpoenas to request the records. Unlike a warrant, those subpoenas involve neither prior approval of a judge nor a showing of probable cause.

The DEA argues that they don鈥檛 need a warrant because people have 鈥渘o constitutionally protected privacy interest鈥� in their confidential prescription records, but that鈥檚 just wrong. As we explained in our opening brief in the case:

This case concerns the right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment in some of the most personal and sensitive information people have: prescription records and the confidential medical information they reveal. Prescription records can divulge information not only about the medications a person takes, but also about her underlying medical conditions, the details of her treatment, and her physician鈥檚 confidential medical advice鈥攁ll matters that society recognizes as deeply personal and private. Indeed, Oregon law recognizes the need for privacy in this information by specifically requiring that law enforcement obtain a probable cause warrant for such records. Yet, claiming that the State鈥檚 warrant requirement is preempted by federal law, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration seeks to obtain鈥攁nd in one case has in fact obtained鈥擮regon patients鈥� confidential prescription records using administrative subpoenas that do not require a showing of probable cause.

Irrespective of whether the State鈥檚 own warrant requirement is preempted, the DEA鈥檚 practice violates patients鈥� reasonable expectation of privacy in their prescription records and, therefore, runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A warrant would be required for federal agents to enter the inner sanctum of a person鈥檚 home and rifle through the contents of her medicine cabinet or bedside drawer; no less protection is required simply because the same information is also stored in a secure database in digital form. As with any other search that infringes on a reasonable expectation of privacy, the DEA must obtain a judicial warrant before perusing a digital archive of patients鈥� confidential health information.

That鈥檚 why we鈥檙e in court today. When law enforcement wants access to people鈥檚 most private information, it must comply with the Fourth Amendment. We hope this case will help enforce that rule, and protect the privacy of our most sensitive medical information.