DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

You know that blood test your doctor ran as part of your wellness check? The state can subpoena the results.

Posted on November 9, 2013 by Dissent

I came across a case in Texas on FourthAmendment.com that gave me food for thought.  From Owens v. State 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 13767 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) November 7, 2013):

In State v. Hardy, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the State’s subpoena of the results of blood tests conducted by private medical personnel solely for medical purposes did not violate the Fourth Amendment. State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516, 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The facts in this case are similar to those in Hardy. Here, the trial court found that (1) the police officer did not suggest the blood draw or exert any influence over the hospital staff; and (2) the blood draw was taken solely for medical purposes. Because private actors conducted the blood draw and blood tests, the hospital staff’s blood draw and test of it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Hardy, 963 S.W.2d at 526. Although the State’s later subpoena of the blood tests is a state action, the request for records does not violate Owens’ reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. at 527. We hold that the Fourth Amendment does not bar the admission of Owens’ blood test results.

Some savvy readers may think, “Well, sure, that makes sense.” But I was thinking about whether patients might avoid treatment or wellness checks if they feared that at some point, the state might subpoena their lab results.  A subpoena is a lower standard than a warrant based on probable cause.  Do we want states to be able to just subpoena the results of psychiatric evaluations on private citizens seeking help from private psychiatrists? Or does the Texas opinion only apply to blood tests and physical examinations but provide greater protection for mental health records? And have courts in other states reached the same conclusion that such subpoenas do not violate the Fourth Amendment?

The issue for the courts may be the reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, but the issue for patients may be the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship. Yes, our privacy practice notices under HIPAA give some sense of required or permitted disclosures, but I’d venture to say that most patients do not give much thought that some day, the state might just subpoena their medical or mental health records.


Related:

  • CISA Alert: Reported Supply Chain Compromise Affecting XZ Utils Data Compression Library, CVE-2024-3094
  • System Status Note
  • System Status Note
  • System Status Note
  • Fraudster's fake data breach claims should remind media to be careful what we report
  • "Pompompurin" taken into custody after violating conditions of pre-sentencing release on bond (1)
Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← Most malware breaches not disclosed – survey
For three years, employee data sat on a former employee's device, unbeknownst to all →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • District of Massachusetts Allows Higher-Ed Student Data Breach Claims to Survive
  • End of the game for cybercrime infrastructure: 1025 servers taken down
  • Doctor Alliance Data Breach: 353GB of Patient Files Allegedly Compromised, Ransom Demanded
  • St. Thomas Brushed Off Red Flags Before Dark-Web Data Dump Rocks Houston
  • A Wiltshire police breach posed possible safety concerns for violent crime victims as well as prison officers
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Almost two years later, Alpha Omega Winery notifies those affected by a data breach.
  • Court of Appeal reaffirms MFSA liability in data leak case, orders regulator to shoulder costs
  • A jailed hacking kingpin reveals all about the gang that left a trail of destruction
  • Army gynecologist took secret videos of patients during intimate exams, lawsuit says

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • As shoplifting surges, British retailers roll out ‘invasive’ facial recognition tools
  • Data broker Kochava agrees to change business practices to settle lawsuit
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs
  • Always watching: How ICE’s plan to monitor social media 24/7 threatens privacy and civic participation

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[at]databreaches.net
Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight
Signal: +1 516-776-7756
DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.