The Georgia Supreme Court has clamped down on law enforcement efforts to obtain evidence against criminal suspects without a search warrant, upholding privacy rights under the Georgia Constitution.
The state’s nine justices unanimously rejected as improper a court order directing a Savannah hospital to secretly hand over the medical records of a suspected drunk driver to a sheriff’s deputy who had abandoned an attempt to get a search warrant.
Both criminal defense attorneys and former state prosecutors are applauding the Dec. 19 ruling.
Peter J. Skandalakis, the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, said he hopes prosecutors and law enforcement officers recognize that using a court order or subpoena to obtain evidence in criminal investigations is wrong.
“I agree with the (state Supreme) Court’s ruling,” Skandalakis told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “If you’re conducting a criminal investigation, the best practice is go get a search warrant.”
Case records show that deputy Jason Fondren of the Effingham County Sheriff’s Office suspected that a man was driving under the influence of alcohol in August 2022 when the suspect and another driver collided. The crash occurred on State Route 275 in Effingham County and both drivers were seriously injured.
An emergency medical services officer allegedly smelled alcohol on the driver suspected of driving drunk while helping to transport him to a hospital in nearby Savannah, case records show.
Fondren first attempted to get a search warrant for the man’s medical records through a Chatham County court, but promptly abandoned that effort upon learning that the judge he sought a warrant from was ill and unavailable, the state Supreme Court said.
About six weeks later, Fondren instead got an order from a judge in Effingham County, directing the hospital to release the suspect’s medical records, including his blood alcohol content. The suspect was not made aware of Fondren’s request or the judge’s September 2022 order, which prohibited the hospital from disclosing the fact that the information had been requested and released.
Fondren relied on medical records from the hospital to obtain arrest warrants, case records show. The suspect was indicted in January on several felony and misdemeanor counts, including driving under the influence and serious injury by vehicle.
The state Supreme Court said there is no evidence that the order releasing the medical records was based on probable cause that a crime had been committed – a key component of a search warrant. The state violated the man’s right to privacy “by obtaining his medical records via (the September 2022) order,” the state Supreme Court said.
In its opinion, the court noted that allowing the state unlimited access to medical records for prosecution purposes would dissuade Georgians from seeking medical treatment. It suppressed the medical records, overturning a trial judge’s decision from May allowing them to be used.
“It is a big win for privacy rights,” said attorney Eric F. Kramer, who represents the man. “It’s really something that every Georgian should know about as far as what their rights are.”
State prosecutors Daphne J. Totten and Keith McIntyre argued the suspect did not have a privacy interest in his medical records linked to the collision. They said the state’s interest in keeping Georgia’s roads safe outweighed “any minimal intrusion” into his personal information.
“There is no privacy interest in driving drunk on the highways and streets of Georgia,” they told the state Supreme Court.
Totten and McIntyre, of the Ogeechee Judicial Circuit, did not respond to questions about the ruling.
“I think most prosecutors would agree with this ruling and understand it,” Skandalakis said.
Criminal defense attorney Surinder K. Chadha Jimenez, who is not involved in the case, told the AJC the ruling “clarifies and establishes that, in Georgia, we have greater (privacy) protections than those that are guaranteed by the (United States) Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution.”
Jimenez said law enforcement officers have few excuses for not requesting search warrants, which are typically rubber-stamped by judges.
“You can’t break the law to enforce the law,” he said.
University of Georgia law professor Elizabeth Taxel told the AJC there is still a way under Georgia law for the state to obtain a criminal suspect’s medical records through a court order, but that a particular process has to be followed. Taxel, a former public defender, said the process ensures the privacy protections afforded in relation to search warrants are met.
“When you get a search warrant, there is transparency in the process and there’s a record created,” Taxel said. “The state can’t just use any path it wants out of convenience.”
