707 So. 2d 1129 - State v. Rutherford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent to the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to: . . . (d) In any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 82 So. 3d 866 - State v. Sun · 763 So. 2d 1159 - Klossett v. State

2. “Exclusion of evidence in this case will serve its purpose and reach a type of governmental action that an exclusionary rule was designed to deter—prosecutorial misconduct that is likely to be prevented if the evidence seized is suppressed. See White, 660 So.2d at 667 . This case does not involve the errors of police officers with limited legal training, but of prosecutors who have had the benefit of law school and on-the-job experience and who have taken an oath to uphold the Florida Constitution. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-4.7. The requisite procedures for obtaining hospital records —notice to the patient and judicial review—are not complex. The state's required showing under Hunter to obtain the records—that they are relevant to a pending criminal investigation—is not onerous. When the cost of losing evidence is compared to the minimal benefits realized from violating the statute, then prosecutorial compliance with the statute will be likely to occur in the future. Without the threat of the exclusion of evidence, the incentive for a prosecutor to comply with section 395.3025(4)(d) is minimal. The statute does not create any other remedy for a violation of its procedures. The experience of an earlier generation was that alternative remedies to the exclusionary rule were "worthless and futile." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 652 , 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1690 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); see also People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434 , 282 P.2d 905, 911-12 (1955). Prosecutors enjoy absolute immun”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 814 So. 2d 390 - State v. Johnson

3. “The [exclusionary] rule is properly applied in cases where evidence is obtained through a constitutional violation, e.g., State v. Albury, 453 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), a violation of a statute implementing or expanding on a constitutional right, see Robertson v. State, 604 So.2d 783 (Fla.1992); D.F. v. State, 682 So.2d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Gulley v. State, 501 So.2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State v. Slaney, 653 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), or where there has been an improper intrusion into a privileged relationship. See State v. Caballero, 510 So.2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (evidence obtained in violation of attorney-client privilege). In weighing the application of an exclusionary rule, the supreme court has found the following passage to be "particularly insightful:" The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some right. By refusing to admit evidence gained as a result of such conduct, the courts hope to instill in those particular investigating officers, or in their future counterparts, a greater degree of care toward the rights of an accused. State v. White, 660 So.2d 664, 666-67 (Fla.1995) (quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 919 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3418 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 447 , 94 S.Ct. 2357, 2365 , 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974))).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 814 So. 2d 390 - State v. Johnson