Opinion ID: 1033708
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 14th Amendment

Text: We find the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Whalen v. Roe10 to be dispositive of Wiedeman’s arguments under the 14th Amendment. In Whalen, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the collection of narcotics prescription records in a database accessible to certain health department employees and investigators—and also to general law enforcement pursuant to 5 See, Omni v. Nebraska Foster Care Review Bd., 277 Neb. 641, 764 N.W.2d 398 (2009); State v. Bakewell, 273 Neb. 372, 730 N.W.2d 335 (2007). 6 State v. Senters, 270 Neb. 19, 699 N.W.2d 810 (2005). 7 Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 97 S. Ct. 869, 51 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1977). 8 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967). 9 Id. 10 Whalen v. Roe, supra note 7. Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. WIEDEMAN 205 Cite as 286 Neb. 193 a judicial subpoena or court order—did not violate the 14th Amendment right to privacy.11 [6] The Court found that the reporting and monitoring of prescription records was a rational exercise of the state’s broad police powers and that it is “well settled that the State has broad police powers in regulating the administration of drugs by the health professions.”12 Further, it was reasonable for the state to believe that the recording program would have a deterrent effect on potential violators and that it would aid in the detection or investigation of specific instances of abuse or misuse of dangerous drugs.13 The Court then concluded that the program did not “pose a sufficiently grievous threat to either [14th Amendment privacy] interest to establish a constitutional violation.”14 Concerning the interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, the Court found that the recording program contained adequate safeguards against disclosure of prescription records to the general public. Although prescription records were automatically disclosed to certain state employees, the Court found such disclosures were not meaningfully distinguishable from “a host of other unpleasant invasions of privacy that are associated with many facets of health care.”15 Patients must disclose private medical information to “doctors, to hospital personnel, to insurance companies, and to public health agencies, . . . even when the disclosure may reflect unfavorably on the character of the patient.”16 As for the privacy interest of independence in making certain kinds of important decisions, the Court held that the recording program did not deprive patients of their right to decide independently, with the advice of a physician, to use 11 Id. 12 Id., 429 U.S. at 603 n.30. 13 See Whalen v. Roe, supra note 7. 14 Id., 429 U.S. at 600. 15 Id., 429 U.S. at 602. 16 Id. Nebraska Advance Sheets 206 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS the medication.17 This was true despite the uncontested evidence that the program discouraged some patients from using monitored medications. The Court observed on this point that the state “no doubt could prohibit entirely the use of particular Schedule II drugs.”18 In sum, the prescription recordkeeping scheme considered in Whalen provided “proper concern with, and protection of, the individual’s interest in privacy.”19 Therefore, it did not violate patients’ 14th Amendment privacy rights. Nebraska does not have a centralized database for prescription records, but instead mandates that such records be kept by the pharmacies for a period of 5 years.20 Nebraska law provides protection against dissemination of these prescription records to the general public. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 38-2868 (Reissue 2008) states that pharmacy records shall be privileged and confidential and may be released only to the patient, caregiver, or others authorized by the patient or his or her legal representative; the treating physician; other physicians or pharmacists when such release is necessary to protect patient health or well-being; or other persons or governmental agencies authorized by law to receive such information. [7,8] Weighing the State’s significant interest in the regulation of potentially dangerous and addictive narcotic drugs against the minimal interference with one’s ability to make medical decisions and the protections from broader dissemination to the general public, we find the State did not violate Wiedeman’s 14th Amendment privacy rights through its warrantless, investigatory access to her prescription records pursuant to § 28-414. Other courts have explained that patients’ substantive 14th Amendment privacy interests in prescription records are “limited to the right not to have the information 17 Whalen v. Roe, supra note 7. 18 Id., 429 U.S. at 603. 19 Id., 429 U.S. at 605. 20 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-411 (Reissue 2008) and § 28-414. Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. WIEDEMAN 207 Cite as 286 Neb. 193 disclosed to the general public.”21 We agree. A legitimate request for prescription information or records by a public official responsible for safeguarding public health and safety, subject to safeguards against further dissemination of those records, does not impermissibly invade any 14th Amendment right to privacy.22 Having so concluded, we find no support for Wiedeman’s suggestion that the 14th Amendment demands a special process for access to her prescription records or for the use of such records in court. We note that Wiedeman did not allege that Jackson’s investigation of the prescription records was for a discriminatory or arbitrary purpose or for anything other than a legitimate investigatory purpose.