State v. Yutzy, 43 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Yutzy, 43 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Herc (fladistctapp, 2011-01-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Herc
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
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).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Albritton
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
We are mindful of the dissent’s concerns regarding an individual’s privacy interest in his or her prescription records for controlled substances; however, we determined in Tamulonis that section 893.07(4) does not violate Florida’s constitutional right of privacy because the statute is narrowly tailored to achieve the State’s compelling interest in regulating controlled substances. 39 So.3d at 528 ; see State v. Yutzy, 43 So.3d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida
v.
Rachel YUTZY
No. 2D09-4834.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Sep 8, 2010.
43 So. 3d 910
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marilyn Muir Beccue, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant., James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Allyn M. Giambalvo, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellee.
Casanueva, Khouzam, Whatley.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
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.