{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:6938f0e4132693f66e47bbe83035869b26d40ad16aef36506b224862ee70b5c1","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"","paragraphs":["para_1"]},{"title":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"LUCAS COUNTY","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-23-1301","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Appellant Trial Court No. CR0202301688","paragraphs":["para_7"]},{"title":"Anthony M. Russell DECISION AND JUDGMENT","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Appellee Decided: November 25, 2025","paragraphs":["para_10"]},{"title":"Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and","paragraphs":["para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18"]},{"title":"I. Assignments of Error","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"I. The trial court erred in holding that the Fourth Amendment to the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"United States Constitution requires law enforcement to obtain a","paragraphs":["para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26"]},{"title":"532 U.S. 67… (2001) and Missouri v. McNeely, [569 U.S. 141] …","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(2013) to create a reasonable expectation of privacy in medical","paragraphs":["para_29"]},{"title":"III. The trial court erred in rejecting law enforcement's good faith","paragraphs":["para_31","para_32","para_33"]},{"title":"II. Background","paragraphs":["para_35","para_36","para_37"]},{"title":"Russell was injured in the accident and sought treatment at Toledo Hospital. As part of","paragraphs":["para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45"]},{"title":"Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. For purposes of the","paragraphs":["para_47"]},{"title":"1. On January 12, 2023, at about 5:41 p.m., Anthony Russell's vehicle","paragraphs":["para_49","para_50"]},{"title":"2. Russell was injured in the accident and sought treatment at Toledo","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Hospital. About 8 days afterwards, Officer Aaron Ritter obtained a grand","paragraphs":["para_53","para_54"]},{"title":"November 21, 2023.1","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"3. … [N]o blood draw or urinalysis was performed at law enforcement's","paragraphs":["para_57","para_58"]},{"title":"4. … Ritter obtained the relevant grand jury subpoena in accordance with","paragraphs":["para_60"]},{"title":"The trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress and then granted the motion. The","paragraphs":["para_62"]},{"title":"III. Standard of Review","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Our review of a decision granting or denying a motion to suppress","paragraphs":["para_65"]},{"title":"Ohio - 5372, . . . ¶ 8. The trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is","paragraphs":["para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70"]},{"title":"Ohio St.3d 19 . . . (1982). We must then determine, without deference to","paragraphs":["para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76"]},{"title":"1 The subpoena is before us for review. While it lists “Aaron Riter,” a sergeant/accident","paragraphs":["para_78","para_79","para_80"]},{"title":"IV. Constitutionality of the Search (First and Second Assignments of Error)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"A. Arguments","paragraphs":["para_83"]},{"title":"Russell’s medical records through a subpoena instead of a warrant was constitutional","paragraphs":["para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93"]},{"title":"Ohio law, the State references an exception for law enforcement purposes in the Health","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Information Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). Further, the State insists that","paragraphs":["para_96"]},{"title":"2 We note that the State’s assigned errors pertain to Fourth Amendment, and not Article","paragraphs":["para_98","para_99","para_100"]},{"title":"Russell did not make any arguments that the Ohio Constitution provides greater","paragraphs":["para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111"]},{"title":"B. Statutory Privilege vs. Constitutional Right","paragraphs":["para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117"]},{"title":"There is a “difference between physician-patient privilege, which applies to admissibility","paragraphs":["para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122"]},{"title":"C. The Fourth Amendment","paragraphs":["para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129"]},{"title":"Jackson, 2004-Ohio-3206, ¶ 8. One way in “which government conduct may amount to","paragraphs":["para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134"]},{"title":"Here there is no dispute that obtaining the medical records was done to acquire","paragraphs":["para_136","para_137"]},{"title":"D. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy","paragraphs":["para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142"]},{"title":"1. State v. Ferguson","paragraphs":["para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153"]},{"title":"2. State v. McNeely","paragraphs":["para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160"]},{"title":"McNeely, 569 U.S. at 146. The Supreme Court declined the State’s request that there be","paragraphs":["para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168"]},{"title":"McNeely, stating that McNeely “supports a holding that an OVI suspect's expectation of","paragraphs":["para_170","para_171"]},{"title":"Although acknowledging that McNeely was distinguishable and did not focus on the","paragraphs":["para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185"]},{"title":"3. Other Relevant Caselaw","paragraphs":["para_187","para_188"]},{"title":"See, e.g., State v. Clark, 2014-Ohio-4873 (3d Dist.), State v. Saunders, 2017-Ohio-7348","paragraphs":["para_190"]},{"title":"But see City of Cleveland v. Dames, 2003-Ohio-6054 (8th Dist.). While these decisions","paragraphs":["para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197"]},{"title":"4. State Laws Permitting Disclosure of Medical Records","paragraphs":["para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209"]},{"title":"State is suggesting that any of these statutes or cases are themselves controlling and","paragraphs":["para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218"]},{"title":"5. R.C. 2317.02","paragraphs":["para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227"]},{"title":"(2)(a) If any law enforcement officer submits a written statement to a health","paragraphs":["para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239"]},{"title":"United States, shall supply to the officer a copy of any of the requested","paragraphs":["para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245"]},{"title":"Release of Records” be submitted to a health care facility “[i]f an official criminal","paragraphs":["para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254"]},{"title":"2317.02(B)(2) “relative to the written statement.”","paragraphs":["para_256","para_257"]},{"title":"2317.022 and it requested records beyond those permitted by R.C. 2317.02, as the statute","paragraphs":["para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267"]},{"title":"3 In oral argument, Russell’s attorney stated that the hospital provided 2,156 pages of","paragraphs":["para_269","para_270"]},{"title":"States.” This includes the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which","paragraphs":["para_272"]},{"title":"Dist.). “Ohio’s passage of [R.C. 2317.02(B)(2) and 2317.022] cannot strip away the","paragraphs":["para_274","para_275"]},{"title":"1998), where this court upheld the constitutionality of R.C. 2317.02(B). We find Rose","paragraphs":["para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280"]},{"title":"6. Third-Party Doctrine","paragraphs":["para_282","para_283","para_284"]},{"title":"Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979). The United States Supreme Court considered","paragraphs":["para_286"]},{"title":"Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, ‘what [one]","paragraphs":["para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299"]},{"title":"Supreme Court cases of United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 442 (1976) and Smith at","paragraphs":["para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306"]},{"title":"It was noted in Eads that records containing information about the use of alcohol, drugs","paragraphs":["para_308","para_309"]},{"title":"2020-Ohio-2805, at ¶ 32 - 33 (1st Dist.). We note the records in this case go beyond the","paragraphs":["para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314"]},{"title":"Tenth District Court of Appeals found that Rogers had a reasonable expectation of","paragraphs":["para_316","para_317"]},{"title":"17. When considering the specific nature of the documents requested here, we agree with","paragraphs":["para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325"]},{"title":"Similarly, in Rogers, the court found no evidence disputing the trial court’s finding of","paragraphs":["para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331"]},{"title":"7. Sufficiency of Subpoena","paragraphs":["para_333","para_334"]},{"title":"State points out that an Ohio grand jury is required to investigate all matters within its","paragraphs":["para_336","para_337"]},{"title":"The State cites to, inter alia, a statement in Carpenter, 585 U.S. at 319, that “[t]he","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Government will be able to use subpoenas to acquire records in the overwhelming","paragraphs":["para_340"]},{"title":"408 (1984) to support its contention that “a subpoena does not violate constitutional","paragraphs":["para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350"]},{"title":"Additionally, the Carpenter majority responded to the dissent’s citation to Donovan and","paragraphs":["para_352","para_353"]},{"title":"Carpenter at 317. The Carpenter court also commented that “[w]hen an individual","paragraphs":["para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359"]},{"title":"Doe, 2016-Ohio-8001, ¶ 24, quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 346","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(1974). (“[T]he grand jury's subpoena power is not unlimited. It may consider","paragraphs":["para_362","para_363","para_364"]},{"title":"Fourth Amendment. Although the State has cited to cases in other jurisdictions where the","paragraphs":["para_366","para_367"]},{"title":"E. Necessity of a Warrant","paragraphs":["para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380"]},{"title":"V. Applicability of the Good Faith Exception (Third Assignment of Error)","paragraphs":["para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387"]},{"title":"(N.D.Ohio June 30, 2016). The good faith exception permits admission of evidence if a","paragraphs":["para_389","para_390"]},{"title":"(2011). This exception includes cases in which the officer conducted a search “in","paragraphs":["para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404"]},{"title":"Next, we do not find it was reasonable to rely upon the subpoena in light of the state of","paragraphs":["para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417"]},{"title":"2015), abrogated on other grounds by Carpenter; United States v. Griffin, 2022 WL","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"2072042, *5 (E.D.Mich. June 8, 2022). Here, we find that the prosecutor may properly","paragraphs":["para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424"]},{"title":"VI. Conclusion","paragraphs":["para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430"]},{"title":"Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGE","paragraphs":["para_433","para_434"]},{"title":"Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE","paragraphs":["para_436","para_437"]},{"title":"JUDGE","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported","paragraphs":["para_441","para_442"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"[Cite as State v. Russell, 2025-Ohio-5306.]","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"LUCAS COUNTY","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-23-1301","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Appellant Trial Court No. CR0202301688","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Anthony M. Russell DECISION AND JUDGMENT","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Appellee Decided: November 25, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"* * * * *","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Jerome Phillips, for appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"* * * * *","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"DUHART, J.","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"{¶ 1} This case is before the court on appeal by appellant, the State of Ohio, from","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"the December 8, 2023 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. For the","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"reasons that follow, we affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"I. Assignments of Error","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"I. The trial court erred in holding that the Fourth Amendment to the","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"United States Constitution requires law enforcement to obtain a","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"search warrant in order to receive toxicology test results for a","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"2.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"particular date, when those results are to be used in a criminal","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"investigation.","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"II. The trial court erred in interpreting Ferguson v. City of Charleston,","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"532 U.S. 67… (2001) and Missouri v. McNeely, [569 U.S. 141] …","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"(2013) to create a reasonable expectation of privacy in medical","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"records for Fourth Amendment purposes.","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"III. The trial court erred in rejecting law enforcement's good faith","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"reliance on the grand jury subpoena process, in the absence of","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"controlling authority rejecting law enforcement’s ability to request","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"and receive toxicology test results for use in criminal investigations.","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"II. Background","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"{¶ 2} On May 8, 2023, Anthony Russell was indicted on two counts of","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"aggravated vehicular assault in violation of R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a) and (B), felonies of the","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"third degree, due to a motor vehicle collision which occurred on January 12, 2023.","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Russell was injured in the accident and sought treatment at Toledo Hospital. As part of","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"the investigation, on January 23, 2023, a grand jury subpoena duces tecum was issued","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"ordering Toledo Hospital to release Russell’s medical records for injuries sustained in the","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"accident. The subpoena noted that the “specific information requested from the medical","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"records” included “[d]iagnosis of injuries as a result of the automobile accident that","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"occurred on 1-12-23, and toxicology reports.” Toledo Hospital complied with the request","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"and on September 15, 2023, Russell filed a motion to suppress on the basis that this was a","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"warrantless search and seizure which violated his right to privacy and his Fourth","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. For purposes of the","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"motion to suppress, the parties stipulated to the following facts:","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"1. On January 12, 2023, at about 5:41 p.m., Anthony Russell's vehicle","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"collided with a vehicle driven by R.M. on Central Avenue.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"3.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"2. Russell was injured in the accident and sought treatment at Toledo","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Hospital. About 8 days afterwards, Officer Aaron Ritter obtained a grand","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"jury subpoena for medical records, a copy of which has been submitted to","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"the Court and marked as Exhibit 1 in connection with the hearing held on","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"November 21, 2023.1","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"3. … [N]o blood draw or urinalysis was performed at law enforcement's","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"request or order. Rather, toxicology testing was performed as part of the","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"health care provided to Russell.","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"4. … Ritter obtained the relevant grand jury subpoena in accordance with","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"Toledo Police Department's policies and procedures.","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"The trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress and then granted the motion. The","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"State appealed.","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"III. Standard of Review","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"Our review of a decision granting or denying a motion to suppress","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Burnside, . . . 2003 -","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"Ohio - 5372, . . . ¶ 8. The trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"in the best position to resolve factual discrepancies and to evaluate the","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"credibility of witnesses. Id., citing State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 366 . .","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":". (1992). We will accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"supported by competent, credible evidence. Id., citing State v. Fanning, 1","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"Ohio St.3d 19 . . . (1982). We must then determine, without deference to","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"the trial court's conclusion, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"standard. Id., citing State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 . . . (4th","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"Dist. 1997).","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"State v. Baker, 2014-Ohio-2564, ¶ 6 (6th Dist.). As the parties have stipulated to the facts","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"in this case, we will review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"1 The subpoena is before us for review. While it lists “Aaron Riter,” a sergeant/accident","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"investigator, as the requestor, it is signed by Jeffrey D. Lingo, Chief of the Special Units","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"Division of the Lucas County Prosecutor’s Office and also signed by a judge.","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"4.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"IV. Constitutionality of the Search (First and Second Assignments of Error)","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"A. Arguments","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"{¶ 3} Both the first and second assignments of error pertain to whether obtaining","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Russell’s medical records through a subpoena instead of a warrant was constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"under the Fourth Amendment. We will therefore consider them together.2","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"{¶ 4} In the first assignment of error, the State argues that the trial court erred in","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"concluding that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a search","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"warrant to receive toxicology test results as the State maintains that it may use a","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"subpoena without a showing of probable cause. The State also asserts that Ohio law","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"permits the disclosure of the medical records in the following circumstances: when test","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"results are requested with the submission of a written statement that a criminal","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"investigation has begun; health care providers are required by law to report certain","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"injuries to law enforcement; and pharmaceutical records may be disclosed. In addition to","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"Ohio law, the State references an exception for law enforcement purposes in the Health","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"Information Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). Further, the State insists that","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"there is no binding precedent recognizing an expectation of privacy in medical records.","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"2 We note that the State’s assigned errors pertain to Fourth Amendment, and not Article","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution, which “[i]n nearly identical language . . . ‘affords","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"the same protection as the Fourth Amendment in felony cases.’” State v. Rogers, 2023-","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"Ohio-2749, ¶ 12 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Jones, 2015-Ohio-483, ¶ 12. Additionally,","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"Russell did not make any arguments that the Ohio Constitution provides greater","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"protections than the Fourth Amendment. Thus, we limit our analysis to the Fourth","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"Amendment.","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"5.","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"{¶ 5} In its second assignment of error, the State contends that the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"erred in interpreting the Ferguson and McNeely cases to create a reasonable expectation","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"of privacy in toxicology test results under the Fourth Amendment and that many","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"jurisdictions permit disclosure of medical records based on a grand jury subpoena. The","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"State also argues that the third-party doctrine, which provides that a person does not have","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"a legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily given to a third party,","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"continues to be applicable.","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"B. Statutory Privilege vs. Constitutional Right","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"{¶ 6} We first find it necessary to delineate the issue before us. The State has","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"made arguments relating to privilege: that medical records were not protected by","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"privilege at common law, that any statutory privilege is narrow and to be strictly","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"construed, and that an “error involving privilege is not a constitutional violation.”","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"However, Russell did not rely upon a statutory privilege to claim a constitutional right.","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"There is a “difference between physician-patient privilege, which applies to admissibility","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"of (properly obtained) evidence at trial, and the Fourth Amendment protection against the","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"government's unauthorized invasion into the patient's medical records, which applies to","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"the government's ability to obtain the evidence.” State v. Little, 2014-Ohio-4871, ¶ 38","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"(3d Dist.). Accordingly, the issue here is a constitutional right, not a statutory privilege.","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"C. The Fourth Amendment","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"{¶ 7} The trial court found that the warrantless search of Russell’s medical","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"records violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"6.","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"seizures. “The Fourth Amendment protects persons from ‘unreasonable searches and","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"seizures’ by the government. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence seized in violation of","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"the Fourth Amendment will result in its suppression.” (Citations omitted.) State v.","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"Jackson, 2004-Ohio-3206, ¶ 8. One way in “which government conduct may amount to","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"… a search occurs when there is an official intrusion into a sphere in which there exists a","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"reasonable expectation of privacy with an intent to obtain information.” (Citations","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"omitted.) State v. Jackson, 2022-Ohio-4365, ¶ 15. A search is unreasonable when police","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"lack a valid warrant and no exception to the warrant requirement applies. Id. at ¶ 10.","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"Here there is no dispute that obtaining the medical records was done to acquire","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"information and that it was accomplished without a warrant. The issue is whether there is","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"a reasonable expectation of privacy in those records.","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"D. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"{¶ 8} Whether Russell had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his medical","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"records “turns on whether [he] ha[d] a subjective expectation of privacy and whether that","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable.” State v. Eads, 2020-Ohio-2805,","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"¶ 12 (1st Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"1. State v. Ferguson","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"{¶ 9} In Ferguson, the United States Supreme Court stated that “[t]he reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"expectation of privacy enjoyed by the typical patient undergoing diagnostic tests in a","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"hospital is that the results of those tests will not be shared with nonmedical personnel","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"without her consent.” Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 78. The State argues that language is mere","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"7.","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"dicta, and that reliance on Ferguson is inappropriate as it is factually dissimilar and the","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"issue in Ferguson was not whether the disclosure of existing medical records amounted","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"to a search. While we agree that Ferguson is factually distinguishable, we find it relevant","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"as it acknowledges the existence of a reasonable expectation of privacy to records such as","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"the ones at issue here.","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"2. State v. McNeely","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"{¶ 10} The State further contends that the trial court misinterpreted the McNeely","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"case when it construed McNeely to stand for the proposition that “warrantless searches","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"are per se unreasonable unless one of the enumerated exceptions to the warrant","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"requirement is applicable.”","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"{¶ 11} In McNeely, without a warrant, a police officer directed a lab technician to","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"take a sample of McNeely’s blood despite McNeely’s refusal to consent to a blood test.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"McNeely, 569 U.S. at 146. The Supreme Court declined the State’s request that there be","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"a per se rule for blood testing in drunk-driving cases because, as argued by the State,","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"“exigent circumstances will necessarily exist because BAC evidence is inherently","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"evanescent.” Id. at 151-152. Instead, the Supreme Court held that there should be a case-","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"by-case determination of the exigency, and that when officers can reasonably obtain a","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"warrant before a blood draw “without significantly undermining the efficacy of the","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so.” Id. at 152.","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"{¶ 12} The Third District Court of Appeals aptly explained the relevance of","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"McNeely, stating that McNeely “supports a holding that an OVI suspect's expectation of","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"8.","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"privacy should not be diminished easily.” Little, 2014-Ohio-4871, at ¶ 33 (3d Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Although acknowledging that McNeely was distinguishable and did not focus on the","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"expectation of privacy, the Third District found it significant that \"the Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"refused to allow warrantless searches even though ‘the privacy interest implicated by","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"blood draws of drunk-driving suspects is relatively minimal’ and the ‘governmental","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"interest in combating drunk driving’ compelling. [McNeely] at 1564–1565. In spite of","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"the recognized importance of preventing ‘drunk driving,’ the Supreme Court declined to","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"depart from the warrant requirement absent exigent circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 34.","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"{¶ 13} The Little court found McNeely instructive, in that it directs courts “to","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"prevent the dilution of the warrant requirement in cases where a patient's federally","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"recognized privacy interest in his or her medical records is at stake and no reasons exist","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"to diminish that privacy interest.” Little at ¶ 35. The Little court found no reason to","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"diminish that privacy interest in “securely-stored medical records.” Id. We agree with","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"the Little court’s analysis and find the trial court did not err in its interpretation of","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"McNeely to the detriment of the State.","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"3. Other Relevant Caselaw","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"{¶ 14} Other Ohio appellate courts have also found a reasonable expectation of","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"privacy in medical records held by a hospital pertaining to tests for drugs and alcohol.","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"See, e.g., State v. Clark, 2014-Ohio-4873 (3d Dist.), State v. Saunders, 2017-Ohio-7348","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"(5th Dist.), Eads, 2020-Ohio-2805 (1st Dist.), Rogers, 2023-Ohio-2749 (10th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"But see City of Cleveland v. Dames, 2003-Ohio-6054 (8th Dist.). While these decisions","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"9.","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"are not binding on this court, we find those concluding there was a reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"expectation of privacy to be well-reasoned and persuasive. We note that the State has","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"cited to a number of nonbinding cases rejecting arguments that there is a reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"expectation of privacy in medical records, however, we do not find these cases","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"persuasive.","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"4. State Laws Permitting Disclosure of Medical Records","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"{¶ 15} The State further asserts that certain laws allow for the disclosure of health","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"records for law enforcement purposes and that, because they do, Russell could not have","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his medical records. The State cites to","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"instances where Ohio law permits the disclosure of health records for law enforcement","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"purposes as evidence that any expectation of privacy in the records would not be","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"reasonable. These examples include requests made pursuant to R.C. 2317.027, the","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"admission of evidence under R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a), laws requiring health care providers","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"to report certain injuries to law enforcement, and cases permitting the disclosure of","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"pharmaceutical records. The State also cites to an exception in HIPAA that allows","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"disclosure of information for law enforcement purposes.","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"{¶ 16} With the possible exception of R.C. 2317.02, it does not appear that the","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"State is suggesting that any of these statutes or cases are themselves controlling and","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"sufficient to overcome Russell’s Fourth Amendment challenge, rather it is the State’s","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"contention that their existence negates any reasonable expectation of privacy in Russell’s","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"medical records. Based on the above detailed reasons, we conclude that Russell did have","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"10.","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subpoenaed records, however, we find it","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"necessary to address R.C. 2317.02 as both the trial court and Russell stated that the State","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"obtained Russell’s records pursuant thereto, and the applicability of the statute has been","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"argued by the parties.","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"5. R.C. 2317.02","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"{¶ 17} R.C. 2317.02, entitled Privileged Communications and Acts, reads in","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"relevant part:","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"{¶ 18} The following persons shall not testify in certain respects:","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":". . .","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"(B)(1) A physician . . . concerning a communication made to the physician .","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":". . by a patient in that relation or the advice of a physician . . . given to a","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"patient, except as otherwise provided in … division (B)(2) ….","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":". . .","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"(2)(a) If any law enforcement officer submits a written statement to a health","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"care provider that states that an official criminal investigation has begun","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"regarding a specified person or that a criminal action or proceeding has","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"been commenced against a specified person, that requests the provider to","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"supply to the officer copies of any records the provider possesses that","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"pertain to any test or the results of any test administered to the specified","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"person to determine the presence or concentration of alcohol, a drug of","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"abuse, a combination of them, a controlled substance, or a metabolite of a","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"controlled substance in the person's whole blood, blood serum or plasma,","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"breath, or urine at any time relevant to the criminal offense in question, and","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"that conforms to section 2317.022 of the Revised Code, the provider,","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"except to the extent specifically prohibited by any law of this state or of the","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"United States, shall supply to the officer a copy of any of the requested","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"records the provider possesses. If the health care provider does not possess","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"any of the requested records, the provider shall give the officer a written","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"statement that indicates that the provider does not possess any of the","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"requested records.","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"{¶ 19} R.C. 2317.022(B) then specifies that a “Written Statement Requesting the","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"Release of Records” be submitted to a health care facility “[i]f an official criminal","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"11.","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"investigation has begun regarding a person or if a criminal action or proceeding is","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"commenced against a person” by “any law enforcement officer who wishes to obtain","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"from any health care provider a copy of any records the provider possesses that pertain to","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"any test or the result of any test administered to the person to determine the presence or","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"concentration of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or alcohol and a drug of abuse in the person's","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"blood, breath, or urine at any time relevant to the criminal offense, in question…” A","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"health care provider receiving such a statement is then required to comply with R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"2317.02(B)(2) “relative to the written statement.”","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"{¶ 20} We note that the State did not follow the procedure set forth in R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"2317.02 or 2317.022 to obtain Russell’s records. It did not use the form required by R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"2317.022 and it requested records beyond those permitted by R.C. 2317.02, as the statute","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"only refers to records pertaining to “any test or the results of any test administered to the","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"specified person to determine the presence or concentration of alcohol, a drug of abuse, a","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"combination of them, a controlled substance, or a metabolite of a controlled substance in","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"the person's whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, or urine at any time relevant to","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"the criminal offense in question.”3 Therefore, it does not appear that R.C. 2317.02 is","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"applicable.","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"{¶ 21} We find that, even if R.C. 2317.02 were applicable, the statute specifically","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"sets forth an exception to the requirement that a health care provider provide medical","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"records when it is “specifically prohibited by any law of this state or of the United","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"3 In oral argument, Russell’s attorney stated that the hospital provided 2,156 pages of","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"records in response to the subpoena.","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"12.","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"States.” This includes the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Rogers, 2023-Ohio-2749 at ¶ 25 (10th","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"Dist.). “Ohio’s passage of [R.C. 2317.02(B)(2) and 2317.022] cannot strip away the","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"protections of the Fourth Amendment.” Eads, 2020-Ohio-2805 at ¶ 26 (1st Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"{¶ 22} The State has cited to State v. Rose, 1998 WL 65497 (6th Dist. Feb. 6,","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"1998), where this court upheld the constitutionality of R.C. 2317.02(B). We find Rose","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"inapplicable here. Rose was decided prior to Ferguson and the only issue considered","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"there was whether R.C. 2317.02(B)(2) was unconstitutional. The case did not discuss","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his medical records and thus,","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"is distinguishable.","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"6. Third-Party Doctrine","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"{¶ 23} The State additionally relies upon the third-party doctrine, which states that","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"“a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"over to third parties.” State v. Carpenter, 585 U.S. 296, 308 (2018), citing Smith v.","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979). The United States Supreme Court considered","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"the third-party doctrine and held that “[a] person does not surrender all Fourth","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, ‘what [one]","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"constitutionally protected.’” Carpenter at 310. The Supreme Court then “articulated ‘a","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"two-part analysis for determining when an individual has a reasonable expectation of","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"privacy in information shared with another.’ First, a court must consider ‘the nature of","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"13.","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"the particular documents sought’ to determine whether ‘there is a legitimate “expectation","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"of privacy” concerning their contents.’ Second, a court must determine whether the third","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"party's possession of the document resulted from ‘voluntary exposure’ by the person with","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"the asserted privacy interest.” (Citations omitted.) Rogers at ¶ 14 (10th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"{¶ 24} The Ohio Supreme Court has considered the third-party doctrine in the","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"wake of Carpenter and found Carpenter to be “a narrow decision” that did “not disturb","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"the application” of the third-party doctrine as previously set forth in the United States","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"Supreme Court cases of United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 442 (1976) and Smith at","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"740. State v. Diaw, 2025-Ohio-2323, ¶ 30.","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"{¶ 25} We find the third-party doctrine inapplicable here. With respect to the","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"nature of the documents, we note that the State sought not only the results of a drug or","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"alcohol test, but all medical records relating to injuries sustained in the automobile","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"accident, including records containing information regarding the “[d]iagnosis of injuries","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"as a result of the automobile accident that occurred on 1-12-23, and toxicology reports.”","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"It was noted in Eads that records containing information about the use of alcohol, drugs","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"of abuse, and controlled substances “exposed too much about [a defendant’s] private life”","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"and thus, are “deserving of protection because of their ‘deeply revealing nature.” Eads,","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"2020-Ohio-2805, at ¶ 32 - 33 (1st Dist.). We note the records in this case go beyond the","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"scope of the records requested in Eads. Similar records to those requested here were","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"sought in Rogers, where law enforcement requested “[a]ny and all medical records","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"regarding emergency room treatment and inpatient treatment” of Rogers. There the","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"14.","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"Tenth District Court of Appeals found that Rogers had a reasonable expectation of","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"privacy in the records, stating that “[i]t is difficult to imagine documents of a more","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"personal nature than medical records, which the law protects in many ways.” Rogers at ¶","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"17. When considering the specific nature of the documents requested here, we agree with","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"the Rogers court and again find that Russell had a reasonable expectation of privacy in","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"his medical records.","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"{¶ 26} With respect to the voluntariness of the exposure of those records, the","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"courts in both Eads and Rogers concluded that such records were not voluntarily","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"exposed. In Eads, the court reasoned that “it was the hospital's protocol to collect the","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"information so that it could provide the appropriate medical treatment” and that there was","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"“no evidence that Eads actually consented to the sharing of the results.” Eads at ¶ 36.","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"Similarly, in Rogers, the court found no evidence disputing the trial court’s finding of","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"“‘no evidence’ showing that the testing was ‘anything other than a routine test required","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"for treatment, or that by providing a sample he was waiving his Fourth Amendment","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"rights.’” Rogers at ¶ 19. We agree with the courts in Eads and Rogers and we find no","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"evidence here that the exposure of Russell’s records was voluntary. Therefore, we do not","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"find the third-party doctrine applicable.","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"7. Sufficiency of Subpoena","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"{¶ 27} The State has additionally argued that a warrant is not necessary because","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"the use of a subpoena is sufficient and does not require a probable cause showing. The","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"State points out that an Ohio grand jury is required to investigate all matters within its","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"15.","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"authority and has the power to issue subpoenas and compel the production of documents.","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"The State cites to, inter alia, a statement in Carpenter, 585 U.S. at 319, that “[t]he","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"Government will be able to use subpoenas to acquire records in the overwhelming","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"majority of investigations” and the State cites to Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"408 (1984) to support its contention that “a subpoena does not violate constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"rights when it is ‘sufficiently limited in scope, relevant in purpose, and specific in","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"directive so that compliance with not be unreasonably burdensome.’”","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"{¶ 28} We note, however, Donovan is not factually similar to this case, and other","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"statements in Carpenter are more relevant to the instant case. With respect to the first","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"statement, that subpoenas will generally be sufficient, the Carpenter court further","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"explained that “a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"privacy interest in records held by a third party,” and that “[i]f the choice to proceed by","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"subpoena provided a categorical limitation on Fourth Amendment protection, no type of","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"record would ever be protected by the warrant requirement.” Carpenter at 318 - 319.","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"Additionally, the Carpenter majority responded to the dissent’s citation to Donovan and","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"other cases, stating that “this Court has never held that the Government may subpoena","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"third parties for records in which the suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"Carpenter at 317. The Carpenter court also commented that “[w]hen an individual","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"‘seeks to preserve something as private,’ and his expectation of privacy is ‘one that","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,’ . . . official intrusion into that private","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"16.","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"cause.” Id. at 304, citing Smith at 740. See also In re Grand Jury Proceeding of John","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"Doe, 2016-Ohio-8001, ¶ 24, quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 346","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"(1974). (“[T]he grand jury's subpoena power is not unlimited. It may consider","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"incompetent evidence, but it may not itself violate a valid privilege, whether established","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"by the Constitution, statutes, or the common law.”). Based upon this language, we do not","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"find that the issuance of a subpoena permits the State to avoid the requirements of the","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"Fourth Amendment. Although the State has cited to cases in other jurisdictions where the","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"disclosure of medical data through the use of a subpoena was permitted, we find these","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"cases are not controlling and are distinguishable.","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"E. Necessity of a Warrant","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"{¶ 29} For the reasons discussed above, we find that Russell had a reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"expectation of privacy in his medical records. As such, the State intruded “into a sphere","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"in which there exists a reasonable expectation of privacy with an intent to obtain","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"information,” and the procurement of Russell’s medical records qualified as a search","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"under the Fourth Amendment. See Jackson, 2022-Ohio-4365, at ¶ 15. This search was","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"conducted without a warrant. “[W]arrantless searches are typically unreasonable where","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"‘a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"wrongdoing.’ Thus, ‘[i]n the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"within a specific exception to the warrant requirement.’” (Citations omitted.) Carpenter","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"at 316 - 17. Here, the State has not alleged any exceptions to the warrant requirement","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"apply. Thus, we find the State’s first and second assignments of error not well-taken.","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"17.","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"V. Applicability of the Good Faith Exception (Third Assignment of Error)","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"{¶ 30} In its third assignment of error, the State contends that, even if a warrant","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"was otherwise required, law enforcement acted in good faith in obtaining the subpoena","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"and therefore the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"{¶ 31} “The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy for Fourth","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"Amendment violations.” State v. Castagnola, 2015-Ohio-1565, ¶ 92. However,","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"application of the rule is not automatic. Greer v. Bradshaw, 2016 WL 3555427, *8","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"(N.D.Ohio June 30, 2016). The good faith exception permits admission of evidence if a","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"law enforcement officer believes in good faith that his or her actions are in compliance","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"with the Fourth Amendment. Id., citing Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 239","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"(2011). This exception includes cases in which the officer conducted a search “in","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"objectively reasonable reliance on binding judicial precedent.” Id., citing Davis at 241.","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"“Because the exclusionary rule's purpose is to deter unlawful police conduct, evidence","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"should be suppressed ‘“only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.”’” State v. Dibble, 2020-Ohio-546, ¶ 18,","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 919 (1984).","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"{¶ 32} The State contends that “[r]eliance upon statutory and regulatory provisions","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"which have not been invalidated should not result in suppression,” and that the officer","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"should be permitted to rely on “the grand jury’s subpoena power, coupled with the lack of","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"binding precedent in state or federal courts.”","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"18.","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"{¶ 33} First, as noted above, the State did not follow the procedure sent forth in","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"R.C. 2317.02(B)(2), and thus, it was not reasonable for the State to rely upon that statute.","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"Next, we do not find it was reasonable to rely upon the subpoena in light of the state of","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"the law at the time the subpoena was issued. Prior to its issuance, Ferguson stated that","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in medical records, Carpenter commented","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"that “warrantless searches are typically unreasonable where ‘a search is undertaken by","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing’” and the","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"majority of courts in Ohio that considered the issue in similar contexts to the one here","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"found a reasonable expectation of privacy in a patient’s medical records. In addition, we","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"note that the subpoena requesting Russell’s securely-stored medical records was made by","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"the prosecutor’s office.","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"{¶ 34} Courts have considered whether prosecutors and other government","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"attorneys acted in good faith when determining whether the good faith exception to the","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"exclusionary rule applies. See, e.g., United States v. Clayborne, 425 F.Supp.3d 1047,","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"1051 - 1052 (E.D.Wis. 2019); United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 518, fn. 20 (11th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"2015), abrogated on other grounds by Carpenter; United States v. Griffin, 2022 WL","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"2072042, *5 (E.D.Mich. June 8, 2022). Here, we find that the prosecutor may properly","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"be charged with knowledge of the state of the law and, based upon the law at the time the","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"subpoena was issued, it was not reasonable for the prosecutor to rely upon a subpoena.","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"For these reasons, we do not find the good faith exception applicable.","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"{¶ 35} Accordingly, the State’s third assignment of error is not well-taken.","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"19.","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"VI. Conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"{¶ 36} The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"Pursuant to App.R. 24, the State is hereby ordered to pay the costs incurred on appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"Judgment affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"JUDGE","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"Christine E. Mayle, J.","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"____________________________","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"CONCUR.","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"____________________________","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"JUDGE","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.","paragraph_id":"para_442"}],"word_count":5025,"cites":["532 U.S. 67","569 U.S. 141","585 U.S. 296","442 U.S. 735","425 U.S. 435","464 U.S.\n408","414 U.S. 338","564 U.S. 229","468 U.S. 897","785 F.3d 498"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"39261f2dbce28d446bee8af9e63f3bd2c7fb06db2924c27cf82d99724e797530","source_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/6/2025/2025-Ohio-5306.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-12T19:40:08.76+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25","verification":{"stored_sha256":"39261f2dbce28d446bee8af9e63f3bd2c7fb06db2924c27cf82d99724e797530","recomputed_sha256":"39261f2dbce28d446bee8af9e63f3bd2c7fb06db2924c27cf82d99724e797530","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-17T23:20:18.840Z"}},"hash":"sha256:6938f0e4132693f66e47bbe83035869b26d40ad16aef36506b224862ee70b5c1","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:6938f0e4132693f66e47bbe83035869b26d40ad16aef36506b224862ee70b5c1","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T00:20:19.397Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-4549d4c7e77398c48cd92db1275cc758","response_hash":"sha256:6938f0e4132693f66e47bbe83035869b26d40ad16aef36506b224862ee70b5c1"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-04T04:26:30.379Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aohioctapp-l-23-1301-2025-11-25&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":22093}}