Category: - California - TARGETED AMERICA

Law Enforcement Access [to Medical Records]

4/20/2019

Law Enforcement Access [to Medical Records]
Electronic Frontier Foundation no date

When exploring medical privacy issues, it's very useful to have an overview of the laws that affect control and privacy of medical information. We encourage you to read our legal overview.

Federal and state laws define some privacy rights for people who want to keep their medical records out of the hands of law enforcement. But law enforcement has many ways to access medical data when investigating crimes, identifying victims, or tracking down a fugitive. Often, the police are able to seek out sensitive medical records without an individual's consent—and sometimes without a judge's authorization.

To understand this, it's useful to compare the federal standards set by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to the more privacy-protective legal standards in the State of California. We'll be jumping back and forth between the two throughout this discussion. Note: this discussion doesn’t cover access to health records relating to treatment in federally funded substance abuse facilities and programs under 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2 and its “Part 2” regulations, which has stricter rules.

Disclosures of medical information to law enforcement by covered entities

The HIPAA Privacy Rule broadly defines law enforcement as "any government official at any level of government authorized to either investigate or prosecute a violation of the law."

Under HIPAA, medical information can be disclosed to law enforcement officials without an individual’s permission in a number of ways. Disclosures for law enforcement purposes apply not only to doctors or hospitals, but also to health plans, pharmacies, health care clearinghouses, and medical research labs. That's because under the HITECH Act, as implemented by the HIPAA Omnibus Rule, both a "covered entity" and any business associate (BA) are directly subject to these law enforcement access rules.

California has somewhat stronger privacy rules that require more court involvement, because HIPAA does not preempt more privacy-protective state laws. In California, search warrants for medical records are generally authorized under the Penal Code and require judicial approval based on probable cause. Less stringent court orders based on a showing of good cause can also be used. And in California, even if a mere administrative subpoena is used, the California Penal Code requires an authorizing court order.

By contrast, HIPAA permits 1 the police to use an administrative subpoena or other written request with no court involvement, as long as police include a written statement that the information they want is relevant, material, and limited in scope, and that de-identified information is insufficient. . . .

California,Federal, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Health Records, Law Enforcement, Medical, Medical Records, Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP), Privacy, State

California court: Old police misconduct records are public

4/2/2019

California court: Old police misconduct records are public
AP News, Kathleen Ronayne, April 2, 2019

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Law enforcement agencies in California must release police misconduct records even if the behavior occurred before a new transparency law took effect, a state court of appeals has ruled.

The 1st District Court of Appeal’s decision released Friday settles for now a debate over whether records created before Jan. 1, when the law took effect, were subject to disclosure. Many police unions have sued to block the records release, while public information advocates argued the records should be disclosed.

The ruling applies to police agencies statewide, including the attorney general’s office, unless another appellate court steps in and rules differently, said David Snyder of the First Amendment Coalition. . . .

AP News, California, Government Transparency, Police, Police Misconduct Records

Court Denies EFF Effort to Obtain Classified Significant Surveillance Court Opinions

3/28/2019

Court Denies EFF Effort to Obtain Classified Significant Surveillance Court Opinions
Electronic Frontier Foundation, Aaron Mackey,March 28, 2019

A federal court’s ruling earlier this week has blunted a key provision of the surveillance reform law that required the government to be more transparent about legal decisions made by the United States secret surveillance court.

After Edward Snowden revealed the government’s ongoing mass collection of Americans’ telephone phone records in 2013, Congress responded by passing the USA Freedom Act in 2015. In addition to limiting the NSA’s surveillance authority, Congress also clearly intended to end the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s (FISC) ability to keep the decisions it made behind closed doors secret.

Since its inception in the 1970s, the government has asked the FISC to decide what constitutional or other legal protections, if any, Americans and others enjoy while seeking approval of the government’s secret mass surveillance programs. Though we were not happy with many aspects of the final USA Freedom language, EFF was pleased that the final language did require that the government review and declassify “each decision, order, or opinion” that contained significant interpretations of the Constitution or other laws and to make them “publicly available to the greatest extent practicable.” We believe this language, along with statements from Members of Congress during the debate, clearly require the FISC to release decisions both from before 2015 as well as after. . . .

California, District Court, Edward Snowden, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Freedom of Information Act Requests, Government Transparency, Law, Lawsuits, National Security, National Security Agency, Phone Records, Privacy, Secret Law, Surveillance, USA Freedom Act

California's landmark police transparency law takes effect after court denies police union effort to block it

1/2/2019

California's landmark police transparency law takes effect after court denies police union effort to block it
Los Angeles Times, Liam Dillon, Jan. 2, 2019, 1:03 p.m.

A new state law allowing the public disclosure of internal police shooting investigations has gone into effect after the California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a bid by a police union to block it.

The law opens to the public for the first time internal investigations of officer shootings and other major uses of force, along with confirmed cases of sexual assault and lying while on duty.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Employees’ Benefit Assn. challenged the law last month, asking state Supreme Court justices to decide that the law only apply to incidents that occur in 2019 or later. The court rejected that request Wednesday, allowing members of the public to seek all applicable records held by police departments. Union president Grant Ward said in a statement that his organization was disappointed with the decision and is now seeking other legal options.

"We feel this is a statewide issue and should be considered accordingly," Ward said.

Last month, the city of Inglewood authorized the destruction of more than 100 police shooting investigations and other records in advance of Jan. 1, when the disclosure law was scheduled to take effect. California law requires police departments to keep such records for five years, and Inglewood City Council voted to destroy records older than that. Mayor James T. Butts has said the decision had nothing to do with the new law. . . .

California, Government Transparency, Los Angeles Times, Police, Police Misconduct Records

L.A. to Use Laser Heat Ray Gun on Prisoners

8/27/2010

CBS News AUGUST 27, 2010 / 11:24

Due to CBS News copyright restrictions we are unable to quote the material but it tells of planned use of a non-lethal laser weapons on prisoners in Los Angeles County.

American Civil Liberties Union, Assault Intervention Device, California, Department of Justice, Directed Energy Weapons, Electromagnetic Weapons, Infrared Cameras, Joysticks, Laser Heat Ray Guns, Lasers, Los Angeles County, Non-Lethal Weapons, Prisoners, Raytheon Missile Systems, Sheriff, Torture

IN THE NEWS

Law Enforcement Access [to Medical Records]

California court: Old police misconduct records are public

Court Denies EFF Effort to Obtain Classified Significant Surveillance Court Opinions

California's landmark police transparency law takes effect after court denies police union effort to block it

L.A. to Use Laser Heat Ray Gun on Prisoners

NEWS and publications

Archives

Categories

Disclaimer: Targeted America is not a law firm. The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter.

This website is best viewed on a computer or laptop.