On June 25, 2024, changes to the HIPAA Privacy Rule aimed at supporting reproductive health care privacy went into effect. Last week, I published a blog post about these changes, including the creation of three new types of prohibited uses and disclosures of protected health information (PHI). This post addresses another major change to the law: a new attestation requirement that applies to four types of uses and disclosures when the PHI at issue is “potentially related” to reproductive health care. It’s not just covered entities and business associates that need to understand this new requirement- judicial officials, law enforcement, health oversight agencies, and medical examiners who frequently request PHI to carry out their official duties will likely encounter situations that require them to comply with the new attestation requirement, too.
court order
Carpenter, Search Warrants, and Court Orders Based on Probable Cause
In Carpenter v. United States, __ U.S. __, __ S.Ct. __, 2018 WL 3073916 (June 22, 2018), the Supreme Court ruled that when the government obtains long-term, historical cell site location information (CSLI) about a person, it conducts a Fourth Amendment search and so “the Government must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring such records.” I previously blogged about Carpenter here.
That post referenced the possibility of using a court order supported by probable cause in lieu of a search warrant. The idea behind that suggestion was that some of the statutory execution procedures associated with search warrants are an awkward fit for this type of order. For example, G.S. 15A-252 requires that an officer executing a warrant must “read the warrant and give a copy of the warrant application . . . to the person to be searched, or the person in apparent control of the premises . . . to be searched.” In a case involving CSLI, is the officer supposed to read the warrant to Verizon? Or to the suspect, even though he or she will not be present at the search? But since I wrote my prior post, I’ve been asked several times whether using a court order based on probable cause in place of a search warrant would really be permissible. This post attempts to answer that question.
Pole Camera Surveillance Under the Fourth Amendment
Placing a video camera on a utility pole and conducting surveillance can be a useful law enforcement tool to gather information without requiring an in-person presence by officers at all times. But this tool may be subject to the Fourth Amendment restrictions. This post reviews the evolving case law, particularly since the United States Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012).
Jeff Welty in a 2013 post reviewed video surveillance generally, not just pole cameras, and discussed Jones and the few cases decided in light of its ruling. This post, after reviewing Jones, will discuss a few pole camera cases decided in federal courts since his post and whether officers should seek approval from a court before conducting pole camera surveillance.
State v. Perry, Cell Site Location Information, and the Exclusionary Rule
Last week, the court of appeals decided State v. Perry. It’s the appellate division’s first foray into cell site location information and a case that raises questions about the status of the exclusionary rule in North Carolina.