Citing references

Relying on the Louisiana Supreme Court decision in State v. Skinner, 08-2522 (La.5/5/09), 10 So.3d 1212 , the defendant notes that the trial court considered the ease, but did not rule accordingly.

See State v. Skinner, 10 So.3d 1212, 1218 (La.2009) (listing federal Circuit Court of Appeals decisions concluding that the constitutional right to privacy extends to medical and/or prescription records). . See, e.g., Pitcock v.

State v. Skinner, 10 So. 3d 1212, 1218 (La. 2009) (emphasis added).

In State v. Skinner , 2008-2522 (La. 5/5/09), 10 So.3d 1212 , the Louisiana Supreme Court was presented with the issue of the proper procedure by which the *1121 State could obtain a defendant's medical records.

We note that in State v. Skinner, 10 So. 3d 1212, 1219 (La. 2009), the Supreme Court of Louisiana concluded that a search warrant was required to obtain an individual’s medical and prescription records.

Skinner, 08-2522, p. 10, 10 So.3d 1212, 1218 (La. 2009) (“[W]e find the Fourth Amendment and La. Const. Art. I, § 5 require a search warrant before a search of prescription and medical records for criminal investigative purposes is permitted!)]”).

However, the Louisiana case, State v. Skinner, 10 So.3d 1212 (La.2009), involved a criminal investigation that is similar to the case herein.

Skinner (La. 2009) 10 So.3d 1212 , which held that a warrantless search of a criminal defendant’s pharmacy records during a criminal investigation violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment privacy interests and the state constitutional right to privacy.15 (Id

State, 272 Ga. 788 , 535 S.E.2d 492 (2000); State v. Skinner, 10 So. 3d 1212 (La. 2009); State v. Bilant, 307 Mont. 113 , 36 P.3d 883 (2001); Murphy, supra note 7. See, also, Doe v. Broderick, 225 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2000).

*220 The State cites State v. Skinner, 10 So. 3d 1212 (La. 2009), King v. State, 577 S.E.2d 764 (Ga. 2003), State v. Nelson, 941 P.2d 441 (Mont. 1997), and Farrall v. State, 902 So. 2d 820 (Fla. Dist. Ct.

State v. Skinner, 08-2522 (La. 5/5/09), 10 So.3d 1212 , 1219. Ms. Juge asserted that during the course of her treatment at Springfield, her employer requested information regarding the anticipated length of her short-term disability. Ms.

The State cites State v. Skinner, 10 So.3d 1212 (La.2009), King v. State, 276 Ga. 126 , 577 S.E.2d 764 (2003), State v. Nelson, 283 Mont. 231 , 941 P.2d 441 (1997), and Farrall v.

State v. Skinner, 08-2522, p. 6 (La.5/5/09), 10 So.3d 1212, 1215-16 . Absent a legitimate expectation of privacy, there can be no “search” subject to the warrant requirement. Illinois v.

Doc. 96 at pp. 4-8. 36 Id. at pp. 8-10. 37 Id. at p. 9. 38 Id. at pp. 1, 3, & 10-22. 39 Id. at pp. 10-22. 40 Id. at p. 21 (citing State v. Skinner, 2008-2522 (La. 5/5/09), 10 So.3d 1212, 1218 ).

Skinner, 08-2522 (La. 5/5/09), 10 So.3d 1212 . Skinner appealed her termination to the Natchitoches Fire and Police Civil Service Board (the Board). The Board unanimously voted to uphold the termination.

State v. Skinner, 08-2522, p. 6 (La. 5/5/09), 10 So.3d 1212, 1215-16 . Absent a legitimate expectation of privacy, there can be no “search” subject to the warrant requirement. Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 , 103 S.Ct. 3319, 3324 (1983).

State v, Skinner, 08-2522, p. 10 (La. 5/5/09), 10 So.3d 1212, 1218 . the blood test was ordered for diagnosis of a medical condition, and second, that Flemones had given consent for the blood draw.””