privacy laws prevent disclosure to third parties not law enforcement w/ search warrant issued by a judge

no court is going to tie law enforcements arms in obtaining evidence.. PERIOD

Only trouble is, the state legislature had enacted a law prescribing a process for obtaining medical records -- and this search warrant procedure circumvented that law.

It's clear that the Florida legislature does not have the same power to make law that its counterparts in the other 49 states have. The courts have demonstrated they are willing to completely disregard explicit statutory law.

"The exception is if a crime is committed, not to aide in helping to get evidence if a crime was committed" -- This is a distinction without a difference. The DA was not randomly searching medical records looking for a crime (unlike say a certain AG in Kansas), or asking a court to look at Limbaugh’s records because he hoped that he would find something. The DA had evidence which he presumably showed a judge, who was convinced that there was probable cause and then issued a search warrant.

"To have the ACLU & Rush on the same side shows the severity of the issue." -- Or the hypocrisy of an individual who has otherwise not shown much interest in protecting the rights of accused criminals, but who is more than willing to use the same defenses he would otherwise ridicule, and the consistency of an organization (even if you don't agree with their positions) that objects to government intrusion into what they consider private and/or protected matters even if the person who is being accused has vilified them in the past.

And, of course, DAs go harder after celebrity criminals where the anonymous criminal might be let off easier. Celebrity criminals serve as a deterrent. Ask Martha Stewart (criminal) or Rudy Giuliani (DA).

You are joking with regards to the confidentiality of medical records and privilege of patient/physician conversations I hope?

Everyone better hope that this gets overturned for their own sake. The exception is if a crime is committed, not to aide in helping to get evidence if a crime was committed. Let alone the HIPAA violations that may have been committed.

To have the ACLU & Rush on the same side shows the severity of the issue. Over zealous prosecutors do not have the right for fishing expedition to gain evidence. There is a high standard of probable cause, especially when it comes to breaking the confidentiality of patient/doctor privileges. Political motivation should never be allowed to create a precedent that will affect all of us. This is really irresponsible.

What makes matters worse is normally one goes after the seller and the solicitor, not the user. But seeing that I believe they gave the maid (the solicitor of the drugs) immunity, cant do that anymore. This just reeks of a Democratic DA trying to make a name going after Rush. The problem with it is that we will all be then affected by the legal rulings.

Furthermore, the doctor-patient confidentiality is not the same as attorney-client confidentiality. There are several exceptions to the former, very few for the latter. And doctors can certainly be compelled to give evidence in criminal trials whereas lawyers generally cannot.

The initial protection for medical records and a patient's privacy is that the DA had to show that there was probable cause for a search warrant. James is exactly right, if the DA obtained the records without probable cause, they can be excluded at trial. Undoubtedly that will be the next avenue of attack for Roy Black.

I know it is Rush, but the DA really didn't have probable cause; at least in the way most criminals get the rules applied to them.