STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RACHEL YUTZY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State appeals the trial court's order suppressing pharmacy records obtained by law enforcement during an investigation into whether Yutzy unlawfully obtained a controlled substance. The appellate court reverses, holding that Florida Statute § 893.07(4) authorizes law enforcement to obtain pharmacy records without a warrant or subpoena and does not violate constitutional privacy rights.
Law enforcement may obtain pharmacy records of controlled substances under Florida Statute § 893.07(4) without a warrant, subpoena, or patient notification. This statutory authority does not violate the Florida constitutional right to privacy because the statute is narrowly tailored to effectuate the compelling state interest in regulating controlled substances.
[1] Section 893.07(4), Florida Statutes, permits law enforcement officers to obtain controlled substance records from pharmacies without a warrant or subpoena.
[2] Pharmacy records containing controlled substance information are subject to inspection and copying by law enforcement officers enforcing controlled substance laws.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“section 893.07(4), Florida Statutes (2007), which requires pharmacists to maintain controlled substance records for at least two years "for inspection and copying by law enforcement officers," provides the authority for law enforcement to obtain pharmacy records regarding controlled substances without a warrant or notification to the patient.”
Establishes the statutory basis for law enforcement access to pharmacy records without a warrant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCorporal Kanoski obtained prescription records from several pharmacies during his investigation of allegations that Rachel Yutzy obtained a controlled…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Constitutional Right To Privacy cases and more on FLexlaw
The State appeals the order granting Rachel Yutzy’s motion to suppress the prescription records obtained by Corporal Ka-noski from several pharmacies during his investigation of allegations that Yutzy obtained a controlled substance from a physician by withholding information.
In the order, the trial court ruled that the corporal’s actions contravened sections 395.3025(4)(d) and 456.057(7)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (2007), and constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment that violated Yutzy’s reasonable expectation of privacy in her pharmaceutical records. At the time of the hearing on Yutzy’s motion to suppress, the trial court did not have the benefit of our recent opinion that is directly on point, State v. Tamulonis, 39 So.3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), or the First District’s decision in State v. Carter, 23 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), which we relied upon in Tamulonis. Both of these opinions address all of the findings in the trial court’s order and mandate reversal.
In Tamulonis, this court held that neither section 395.3025(4)(d) (applying to licensed facilities, the definition of which does not include pharmacies) nor section 456.057(7)(a)(3) (regulating health care practitioners, the definition of which expressly excludes pharmacists) required law enforcement to obtain a subpoena before procuring a patient’s pharmacy records. Rather, section 893.07(4), Florida Statutes (2007), which requires pharmacists to maintain controlled substance records for at least two years “for inspection and copying by law enforcement officers,” provides the authority for law enforcement to obtain pharmacy records regarding controlled substances without a warrant or notification to the patient. Tamulonis, 39 So.3d at 527; Carter, 23 So.3d at 799. And because section 893.07(4) is narrowly tailored to effectuate the compelling state interest in regulating controlled substances, it does not violate Florida’s constitutional right to privacy. Art. I, § 23, Fla. Const. See Tamulonis, 39 So.3d at 528.
Accordingly, we reverse the order granting Yutzy’s motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.
CASANUEVA, C.J., and KHOUZAM, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. SUN, 82 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…by section 893.07(4), Florida Statutes (2009), and ... the statute does not violate Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution.” 59 So. 3d at 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Hendley v. State, 58 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); State v. Yutzy, 43 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); State v. Tamulonis, 39 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); State v. Carter, 23 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)). With respect to the Fourth Amendment argument Sun raises on appeal, we construe it to be an as-applied challenge and deem…
-
State v. Herc, 67 So. 3d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…tion 893.07(4), Florida Statutes, law enforcement officers may obtain controlled substance records of pharmacies without notifying the patient or obtaining a warrant. See also State v. Shukitis, 60 So. 3d 406, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); State v. Yutzy, 43 So. 3d 910, 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). We therefore reverse the order suppressing the pharmacy records of the Hercs. Although the Hercs concede that detectives were not required to obtain their consent or a warrant before obtaining the pharmacy records, they arg…
-
State v. Wright, 59 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…93.07(4), Florida Statutes (2009), and that the statute does not violate Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution. See State v. Carter, 23 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); State v. Tamulonis, 39 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); State v. Yutzy, 43 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Hendley v. State, 58 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). We therefore reverse the order as it applies to the pharmacy records. On re [*264] mand the circuit court may hold further hearings and consider whether or not the information o…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Carter, 23 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- State v. Tamulonis, 39 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)