Limbaugh challenges seizure of medical records
WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- Rush Limbaugh's attorney filed a reply Thursday in the Florida 4th District Court of Appeal saying prosecutors failed to comply with a state statute in seizing his medical records.
The brief, filed by Roy Black, called the state's argument that privacy rights were not violated an "arrogant argument [that] flouts the rule of law, the fundamental concepts underlying our system of government, and the decisions of this court."
Prosecutors argue that privacy rights should not prevent them from reviewing Limbaugh's medical records because they were seized by search warrant, in compliance with the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which is the standard for search and seizure in the Florida Constitution.
Black said in the brief that State Attorney Barry Krischer ignored a recent appeal curt decision suppressing evidence because police obtained it without following a state statute that gives Florida citizens greater protection than the Fourth Amendment.
"Only two years ago, this very court suppressed evidence in a case out of Mr. Krischer's own office because of the state's failure to follow the procedures required by another state law," Black said in the brief. "This 2002 case, State v. Langsford, is not even mentioned in the state's brief."
According to Black's brief, the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled in the Langsford case that a blood test obtained pursuant to probable cause could be suppressed as evidence because the defendant did not consent to it after a car accident.
While the blood test was obtained in compliance with the Fourth Amendment, it was found in violation of a stricter requirement under a Florida statute, the brief said.
Limbaugh has not been charged in the investigation.
On his radio program Thursday afternoon, Limbaugh said prosecutors had admitted in a court brief that "they want to go on a fishing expedition to see if there is something in my medical records that would allow them to charge me with anything."
He added, "Our view is that I do not have to give up my right to privacy in order to help them charge me with something when I haven't done what they say I have done anyway."