Derek Rosa v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 2, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1662
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1662 Lower Tribunal No. F23-21321 ________________

Derek Rosa, Petitioner,

vs.

State of Florida, Respondent.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Richard Hersch, Judge.

Baez Law Firm, and Rosemarie Peoples; The Rielo Law Firm, and Dayliset Rielo; Langer Law, and Stephanie Langer, for petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

LOGUE, C.J. Derek Rosa, a juvenile, petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the trial

court’s August 29, 2024 and September 6, 2024 orders requiring the

disclosure of private medical and other information.

This is an extraordinary case. Derek Rosa is a fourteen-year-old

charged by a grand jury indictment with first degree murder in the stabbing

death of his mother. He is currently being held in a Miami-Dade County

Department of Corrections facility that primarily houses adult offenders. He

and other juveniles in his status are segregated from the adult population for

their own safety and well-being.

While considering Derek Rosa’s motion for remand to a juvenile facility,

which involved extensive evidence of the juvenile’s medical and other

records, the trial court entered the August 29, 2024 order requiring the

juvenile to share his “medical, mental health, psychological and social work

records” “with counsel for Miami-Dade County Corrections.” The order

further provided that the records “will remain confidential and only disclosed

on an as needed basis to appropriate personnel within Miami-Dade

Corrections and only for the benefit of the Defendant.”

In response, the juvenile filed a motion for a protective order, which the

trial court denied in the September 6, 2024 order. The trial court noted that

production of certain educational records was “moot” because the Counsel

2 for Miami-Dade County Corrections indicated no interest in them. The trial

court, however, ordered the production of certain medical records to the court

for consideration for filing in the court file. The trial court also placed more

stringent conditions on distribution of the records to protect the privacy of the

records, including advising the Counsel for Miami-Dade County Corrections

that failure to protect the privacy of the records could lead to sanctions. In

response, the juvenile timely filed the subject petition for certiorari.

“A patient's medical records enjoy a confidential status by virtue of the

right to privacy contained in the Florida Constitution, and any attempt on the

part of the government to obtain such records must first meet constitutional

muster.” State v. Johnson, 814 So. 2d 390, 393 (Fla. 2002). “The right to

privacy,” however, “is not absolute and will yield to compelling governmental

interests.” Id.

The most unusual and salient circumstance in this case is that the trial

court entered its original order sua sponte. The records were never

requested by the State Attorney, the State of Florida, or the Miami-Dade

Department of Corrections. Indeed, when served with this petition, these

entities declined to oppose the juvenile’s petition. In these circumstances,

we find the record does not contain the required “compelling governmental

interests” required to overcome the juvenile’s right to privacy.

3 We respect and acknowledge the care and insight behind the actions

of the seasoned trial judge in this extraordinary case. At the same time, we

caution that trial courts must be mindful of the limits imposed by the judicial

role. With very few exceptions, the court's role does not include initiating

matters but instead is limited to adjudicating matters properly raised by

interested parties. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 205 So. 3d 820, 823 (Fla. 2d

DCA 2016) (holding trial court departed from the role of neutral arbitrator by

calling its own witness during sentencing hearing); H.L.D., Jr. v. State, 83 So.

3d 750, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“[A] judge may not independently

investigate facts outside the presence of the parties except when expressly

authorized by law to do so.”); R.O. v. State, 46 So. 3d 124, 126 (Fla. 3d DCA

2010) (“A court may not ask questions or make comments in an attempt to

supply essential elements to the State's case.”).

Accordingly, we quash the orders under review without prejudice to the

entry of such orders if and when an interested party files a motion seeking

access to the confidential records at issue and demonstrates the required

“compelling governmental interests.” Johnson, 814 So. 2d at 393.

Petition granted; orders quashed.