[blackshoe]

If it's a crime to lie to federal law enforcement, it's probably because there's a federal law that says so. If it's not a crime to lie to local law enforcement, it's probably because no local jurisdiction has got around to making it illegal. If some local jurisdiction has tried it, and a court has said "you can't do that" then I have to wonder if the federal law has been tested in court.

It's entirely possible that "you can't lie to federal law enforcement" is a Hollywoodism, by which I mean it's something some screenwriter made up.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2014-March-14, 10:45, said:

There's a well-known principle of doctor-patient confidentiality. Is teacher-student confidentiality a thing? If it does exist, does that include attendance records?

There definitely is, at the college level. The assumption is that an 18 year old has privacy rights, including privacy from parental inquiries. I violated this once, knowingly. A mother was quite distruaght, she knew her son was heavily into drugs, and she was trying to get to speak to him. I judged that she was not at all crazy and that some intervention was appropriate, and so I helped her locate him. It all worked out but it was forcefully explained to me that I was putting myself and the school in legal jeopardy. I was pretty much aware of that but I did it anyway. Some cop coming around asking about a student would, for me, be a different story.

There is some proviso, or I think that there still is, for parents to bring in some proof the student is still financially dependent on them and then I think a limited amount of information can be divulged. But there is reason for care, since not all students are dependent on their parents. I wasn't, for example. But in the case mentioned above I just saw what I regarded as a situation in need of some intervention so I did it. I would not make a habit of it, not if I wanted to keep my job.

For parents who are paying the bills, I think the situation is simple in principle: They can explain to their offspring that if said offspring wants them to continue paying those bills then s/he will sign a release so that they can converse with the instructor. One of my more memorable approved exchanges was with an exasperated father and mother who fully understood the reasons for their son's low grades. I explained that he would have to retake the course and said I thought he would be able to get a C next time if he would, for example, show up for class. The father responded "But he won't be able to get into graduate school with Cs". I masterfully bit my lip and held my tongue, avoiding saying something such as "Graduate school? Your son? We do not use those words in the same sentence". Of course who knows, really. I was highly erratic as a student so I should remember that before I speak.

[barmar]

So if a student's alibi were that he said he was in class at the time the crime was committed, you couldn't confirm or deny it because of confidentiality rules?

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2014-March-15, 02:59, said:

So if a student's alibi were that he said he was in class at the time the crime was committed, you couldn't confirm or deny it because of confidentiality rules?

More precisely, I wouldn't do so unless either the student allowed it or I was advised by the University lawyer that I should confirm or deny it. This was what I was getting at with the hospital staff. I am not a lawyer and neither are most people who work in hospital's. I don't know my obligations. Some guy with a badge shows up and demands information. Maybe he is from the county sheriiff's office. maybe he is state police. Maybe he is from the FBI. Maybe I am obligated to cooperate with all of them or maybe I am forbidden by privacy rules from answering any of the questions from anyone. Maybe it depends on federal, state or local. Maybe a lot of things. I really think, for my own legal safety, I have to say "Get some documentation, give me time to check, then I will, if it all checks out, answer your questions".

Bottom line with regard to Ken's OP: Not only the patient but also the hospital worker needs the protection of some sort of review process.

Added: The above assumes we are not in an emergency situation. In the case I mentined above where I "just did it" I thought it likely that we did not really have time to screw around with paperwork. But if we have the time, I think we need some documentation. If the case is worth the cop's time to come out and interview me, it's not asking too much to do it right.

[mycroft]

Dexterity tests after an accident can't help but be dangerous and biased - the person is in shock after all, even if they're not injured.

How do you breathalyze someone who is unconscious or through other injuries can't breathe deeply?

I still think the proper thing to do vice the current Ohio statute is for hospitals to refuse to do drug and alcohol-based tests as part of the basic bloodwork unless it is medically necessary - that way there's nothing to return.

[mike777]

To play devils advocate the defining line between a person's right to privacy and issues such as public safety are often not as clear as we nonlawyers would like to think.

We do give up many rights for the right to drive on public streets. Not all privacy rights but many. Now add in the fact you are in a "serious" accident and the police are doing a criminal investigation will count for some nonzero cause.

Again where to draw the line is easier said then done. I do understand for many the default answer is get a warrant, period.

I would find it interesting to hear KenR make his strongest case to uphold the code.

[kenrexford]

The strongest argument I can make is a middle ground approach. I personally don't think that the existing law is defensible. In fact, the prosecution could not do it except by claiming that the right to privacy has been revoked in Ohio. This was a sad day for the State.

We're I to defend the basic idea, I would recommend a law with as little protection as possible. For example, I might have a process allowing the subpoena of the records, delivery to the court, and opportunity for the suspect to object if done within 7 days, the standard for review being simply proof of an accident in a traffic case. The warrant may be too much.

I am not as concerned about the records being released in response to an accident. I am concerned about the process enabling rogue cops with no accident required and no one watching over the process.

[kenberg]

I think the possibility of a "rogue cop" is a completely reasonable concern. It's just a matter of saying cops are human like the rest of us. They take short cuts, theyy assert authority that they don't have, they try to help a friend in a dispute, and so on. Having a review process is imo, good for all concerned.

[Bbradley62]

KenR: Would you then require hospitals to perform alcohol/drug tests when drivers are treated, so that there will be records to subpoena, or would drivers (or their proxies) be allowed to "opt out" of having such tests performed in the first place?

[kenrexford]

Bbradley62, on 2014-March-18, 08:22, said:

KenR: Would you then require hospitals to perform alcohol/drug tests when drivers are treated, so that there will be records to subpoena, or would drivers (or their proxies) be allowed to "opt out" of having such tests performed in the first place?

No, I would not require hospitals to drug test people for the government. If you start down that path, where does it stop? Why not require hospitals to drug test people any time they show up, as a means of winning the war of drugs? Why just hospitals? Why not just line people up for yearly tests?

[barmar]

kenrexford, on 2014-March-18, 11:01, said:

No, I would not require hospitals to drug test people for the government. If you start down that path, where does it stop? Why not require hospitals to drug test people any time they show up, as a means of winning the war of drugs? Why just hospitals? Why not just line people up for yearly tests?

That reminds me. I think at one time some cities or states tried to combat drunken driving on holidays like New Year's Eve by setting up random police stops to apply breathalyzer tests. I'm sure there were court cases over this, but I can't remember how they decided.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2014-March-18, 12:47, said:

That reminds me. I think at one time some cities or states tried to combat drunken driving on holidays like New Year's Eve by setting up random police stops to apply breathalyzer tests. I'm sure there were court cases over this, but I can't remember how they decided.

I was stopped for something along these lines but it was not alcohol related. I was going to a local park that had one main road in and after grtting on this road there was a huge line of cars, all stuck with no decent option, waiting for a cop to check us out on something, I forget just what they were checking on. . I remember complaing to the cop and citing some story that I had recently read indicating such stops were illegal. The cop explained that it was illegal to make random stops, but here they were stopping everyone so it was legal. I was not amused. Whatever the checking was for, i passed it. It just took twenty or thirty minutes.

Probably others, maybe some with more pull, were also not amused because I never saw it happen again. I think some cops just got pissed at being told that they couldn't do random stops and decided to take it out on us.

[mike777]

As CCTV becomes much more common in the USA it will be interesting to sort through all the privacy law suits.

I note for the most part we have given up our right to privacy over the internet between all the Big Data robots and young people posting all sorts of things.

These robots seem to be able to match up names with much of our medical history all ready per 60 minutes tv show.

My guess is many of our posters medical history is all ready out there on big data company servers.

[mike777]

kenrexford, on 2014-March-18, 04:46, said:

The strongest argument I can make is a middle ground approach. I personally don't think that the existing law is defensible. In fact, the prosecution could not do it except by claiming that the right to privacy has been revoked in Ohio. This was a sad day for the State.

We're I to defend the basic idea, I would recommend a law with as little protection as possible. For example, I might have a process allowing the subpoena of the records, delivery to the court, and opportunity for the suspect to object if done within 7 days, the standard for review being simply proof of an accident in a traffic case. The warrant may be too much.

I am not as concerned about the records being released in response to an accident. I am concerned about the process enabling rogue cops with no accident required and no one watching over the process.

Just to back up for a second. Has the right to privacy been revoked in Ohio at the state level courts?

[kenrexford]

mike777, on 2014-March-18, 15:50, said:

Just to back up for a second. Has the right to privacy been revoked in Ohio at the state level courts?

That's the issue here. States often create parallel rights. For example, the constitution affords the right to a speedy trial and the State has a statute establishing a 90 day rule. The constitution has a confront your accusers right and the State has hearsay rules. A lot of parallels.

In ohio the right to medical privacy as a constitutional right had a parallel of a doctor patient privilege. The state decided that the privilege was getting in the way of law enforcement, so they revoked the privilege. This seemed bad, so they restored it but with this 1994 law as an exception.

My appeal claims that although the State of Ohio can revoke a privilege it created, it can't abridge a privilege established by the constitution, per the 14th amendment. Since they both cover the same territory, the statutory fix is no good.

The core, therefore, has a question about whether the federal constitution trumps in Ohio. As I put it in my brief, when the State and the uUnited States supreme court disagree on a question about federal constitutional right, the United States supreme court always wins.

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on 2014-March-18, 14:44, said:

I was stopped for something along these lines but it was not alcohol related. I was going to a local park that had one main road in and after grtting on this road there was a huge line of cars, all stuck with no decent option, waiting for a cop to check us out on something, I forget just what they were checking on. . I remember complaing to the cop and citing some story that I had recently read indicating such stops were illegal. The cop explained that it was illegal to make random stops, but here they were stopping everyone so it was legal. I was not amused. Whatever the checking was for, i passed it. It just took twenty or thirty minutes.

Probably others, maybe some with more pull, were also not amused because I never saw it happen again. I think some cops just got pissed at being told that they couldn't do random stops and decided to take it out on us.

These kind of "check everybody" events occur regularly in the Netherlands.

As a school kid you are already getting used to this, since in fall, when it gets darker, the police will be hiding around a corner somewhere on your way to school to check whether everybody has functioning bike lights.

They will do "catch everybody" drive through alcohol tests around festivals such as carnaval. The time lost for the drivers is minimal since the police come out at full force, so you don't need to wait long.

I think it is very good that the police performs these checks and I think the vast majority of the Dutch think the same way.

Rik

[kenberg]

Ticketing those w/o lights, car or bike, seems completely natural. A nearby ocal jurisdiction has a limited access two land undivided highway and requires drivers to use headlights during the day as well as at night. There are signs telling us so, and they give tickets to those who forget. . Fair enough.

I have heard of sobriety checkpoints for cars although I have never been stopped in one. I did once go to a wine festival (invited by some friends who actually liked it, no accounting for taste) where you paid an entry fee and got free wine and music afterward. As you left, they checked you with a breathalyzer. Becky agreed to be the designated driver, but the wine was lousy and you had to stand in line to get it, so we both passed the test when we left. Also the music was lousy and loud, so mostly we escaped to the edge, enjoyed the sunshine, and got the hell out as soon as we could do so w/o social awkwardness.

I understand safety concerns but I guess I think that I should be doing something to arouse concern before the police can intervene, as opposed to monitor. I was stopped once for speeding, I was speeding, and given a breathalyzer which I passed. I had had some wine at dinner, this was fairly late so it had worn off. Checking me for alcohol after I violate a law seems fair enough, but just stopping me on general principles seems like a stretch.

Monitoring compliance with the law is a tricky concept. Most of us are not sociopaths but good god there are a lot of laws. Maybe there should be at least some reason to believe that we are doing something wrong before we have to prove that we are not.

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on 2014-March-19, 07:07, said:

Maybe there should be at least some reason to believe that we are doing something wrong before we have to prove that we are not.

I understand where you come from and that for you "reason to believe" is meant on the individual level. (As in: "We have reason to believe that you, Ken, have done something wrong.)

In Europe, the "reason to believe" is certainly there, but it is on the statistical level: Many people who drive around carnival have been drinking. Therefore the probability that any individual who drives around carnival has been drinking is quite high. Therefore, we have reason to believe that you have been drinking and therefore we check everyone who passes by.

Actually when I was living in Sweden they took it a step further in a way that I originally didn't understand (but then I don't drink). From time to time, they do breathalyzer tests on everybody who enters the parking lot of the grocery store on Saturday morning (when all families do their grocery shopping). But some Swedes drink a lot on Friday evening, so much that they are still above the legal limit on Saturday morning when they shop.

Rik

[Bbradley62]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-19, 12:07, said:

In Europe, the "reason to believe" is certainly there, but it is on the statistical level: Many people who drive around carnival have been drinking. Therefore the probability that any individual who drives around carnival has been drinking is quite high. Therefore, we have reason to believe that you have been drinking and therefore we check everyone who passes by.

Such checkpoints are also common in some parts of the US. I saw many in both New Jersey and Georgia, most frequently on holidays (most specifically New Year's Eve, St Patrick's Day and Cinco de Mayo) or holiday weekends (usually Memorial Day and Labor Day). State laws vary: http://www.ghsa.org/...point_laws.html

[akwoo]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-19, 12:07, said:

In Europe, the "reason to believe" is certainly there, but it is on the statistical level: Many people who drive around carnival have been drinking. Therefore the probability that any individual who drives around carnival has been drinking is quite high. Therefore, we have reason to believe that you have been drinking and therefore we check everyone who passes by.

Here's the problem with "statistical reason to believe": Could the police use it as a reason to stop all East Asian young men, and no one else, on Chinese New Year? If so, and then the police subsequently decide not to stop South Asian young men on Diwali, what happens when someone claims (correctly or not) that the police action was harassment targeted at an ethnic group the police happen not to like for some reason?