Call us now:
Jaeger v State -2D2024-1342 – 2nd DCA- Pinellas County
The State has many powers at its disposal to investigate suspected criminal activity. Not only is there a small army of police officers and law enforcement officers of all kinds collecting evidence 24/7, the various State Attorney’s around Florida have their own investigatory powers and frequently issue search warrants, present evidence to grand juries, and also issue subpoenas.
Sometimes before or after someone has been accused of a crime the State will try to fish around for documents and evidence to help prove a story they have developed in their own minds. Things like – she’s a drug addict. He’s crazy. They confessed to the doctor. He’s changing what he says to medical staff to hide drugs/alcohol/or incriminating details. But trying to do so early in a case and without following the rules causes problems for overzealous prosecutors.
The important thing to remember however is that the agencies of the State derive their authority from the laws and Constitution of the people of Florida, and the same laws which give power to the government also can limit the government’s reach. A recent case is a good illustration of this principle when dealing with the law of subpoena for medical records in a criminal investigation.
In a recent case, the State charged Amy Jaeger in Pinellas County with attempted first-degree murder, armed burglary, and aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. Shortly after filing the charges, the State served subpoenas for Jaeger’s medical records from Bayfront Medical Center and Sunstar EMS, which were related to her injuries from the night of the alleged crimes. Jaeger objected, arguing that the subpoenas were overly broad and irrelevant to the charges.
The Subpoenas sought pretty much anything you can think of when being treated at a hospital: doctor observations, blood work, names of treating staff, and all notes.
At a hearing to justify the issuance of their subpoenas, the State relied solely on the arrest affidavits, which detailed the following: Jaeger’s boyfriend broke up with her due to her alcohol abuse, prompting Jaeger to stab him multiple times. She then followed him to a neighbor’s home, attempted to break in, and threatened law enforcement officers while still armed.
The State argued that Jaeger’s medical records might contain relevant information about her injuries and possible self-defense claims, and the victim’s rationale for breaking up with her (alcohol abuse).
The trial court overruled Jaeger’s objections, allowing the subpoenas to proceed, noting that there was a connection between Jaeger’s blood chemistry, her physical injuries, and possible statements made during transport to the hospital. However, Jaeger appealed, asserting that the subpoenas violated her constitutional right to privacy.
The Appellate Court sided with Amy Jaeger, agreeing that the subpoenas were an impermissible intrusion into her privacy rights.
The Florida Constitution guarantees the right to privacy, including protection of medical records. To overcome this right, the State must demonstrate a compelling interest in obtaining the records. This requires proving a reasonable suspicion that the records contain information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
The guarantee in article I, section 23, of the Florida Constitution, that “[e]very natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life” extends to medical records. State v. Rivers, 787 So. 2d 952, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citing Hunter, 639 So. 2d at 74). To overcome a patient’s privacy right in his or her medical records, the State must prove that it has a compelling interest in having the records disclosed. Id. “Such an interest exists where there is a reasonable founded suspicion that the materials contain information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” Id. (first citing Hunter, 639 So. 2d at 74; and then citing State v. Rutherford, 707 So. 2d 1129, 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)).
Issuance of Subpoena like these requires a “nexus” between the records and a material issue in the case. Relevancy, via evidence, must be shown before a subpoena may be issued. The court outlined a two-pronged test for the State: (1) the State must identify a reasonable theory connecting the records to a material issue in the case, and (2) must present evidence supporting the likelihood that the records will provide relevant information. In this case, the State failed to meet these criteria.
The State’s reliance on arrest affidavits was insufficient because the affidavits did not support the relevance of Jaeger’s medical records. For instance, the affidavits did not mention any injuries caused by the victim, nor did they suggest Jaeger made any incriminating statements to paramedics. The State’s theory of a potential self-defense claim was speculative and unsupported by evidence. Additionally, the State did not demonstrate how the medical records were relevant to any specific element of the charges against Jaeger.
The court granted Jaeger’s petition, quashing the subpoenas, but noted that the State could seek the records in the future if it can meet the necessary legal standards.
Ultimately the problem for the State here was that they had an attorney go in and make argument about legal ideas and theories which may have actually been grounded in some fact known by the attorney, the problem is arguments and theory and conjecture are not evidence, and when an knowledgeable and zealous defense attorney holds the State to their burden of proof under the law the State can fail to win the day.
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
If you’re accused of any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases will involve constitutional questions and concern allegations of misconduct or are sensitive in nature, requiring a skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.