D.Mont.: Civil demand for BAC test in Indian country did not violate HIPAA

The FBI’s civil demand from the BIA for BAC records from a hospital did not violate HIPAA. United States v. Cree Medicine, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110982 (D. Mont. June 11, 2025):

The government in Elliott issued a subpoena to the hospital that took the defendant’s blood commanding that the medical records be produced. Elliott at 433. The Clerk of the Court issued the subpoena to the hospital and the hospital complied and produced the blood results. Id. The District of Maryland found that the government failed to comply with the requirements under the “law enforcement exception.” The District Court determined that the Clerk of Court was not a “judicial officer” as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(A). The District of Maryland nevertheless conducted a balancing test between the government’s interest in obtaining medical information and a person’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Elliott, 676 F. Supp. 2d 431, 439 (D. Md. 2009).

The Court finds that the narrow law enforcement exception applies here. The Court recognizes that in other circumstances a warrant may be required, and the holding applies specifically to the facts present in this case. The Court provides no analysis as to the requests by BLES officers and BIA agent to BCH to produce Cree Medicine’s medical records. The FBI’s requests seem to fall into the narrow category of the law enforcement exception of an “authorized investigative demand,” and thus does not run afoul of HIPAA or the Fourth Amendment. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(C). BCH was not acting as a government agent and simply was responding to a lawful request by the FBI.

This entry was posted in Privileges, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.