State v. Yutzy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Yutzy

43 So. 3d 910, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13372, 2010 WL 3490265

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 8, 2010

DocketNo. 2D09-4834

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 43 So. 3d 910 (State v. Yutzy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Yutzy, 43 So. 3d 910, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13372, 2010 WL 3490265 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WHATLEY, Judge.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 So. 3d 910, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13372, 2010 WL 3490265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-yutzy-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack