argue - ACLU

42 Pages·2012·0.24 MB·English

Case 3:12-cv-02023-HA Document 48 Filed 09/23/13 Page 1 of 42 Page ID#: 757
Kevin Díaz, OSB No. 970480
Email: [email protected]
ACLU Foundation of Oregon
PO Box 40585
Portland, OR 97240
Tel.: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

Nathan Freed Wessler (pro hac vice)
Email: [email protected]
Ben Wizner (pro hac vice)
Email: [email protected]
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel.: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs-Intervenors

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

OREGON PRESCRIPTION DRUG
MONITORING PROGRAM, an agency of Case No.: 3:12-cv-02023-HA
the STATE OF OREGON,
PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS’
Plaintiff, COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
DEA’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
v.
JUDGMENT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS’
UNITED STATES DRUG
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,
an agency of the UNITED STATES
Request for Oral Argument
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
Case 3:12-cv-02023-HA Document 48 Filed 09/23/13 Page 2 of 42 Page ID#: 758
JOHN DOE 1, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

v.

UNITED STATES DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,
an agency of the UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendant in Intervention.
Case 3:12-cv-02023-HA Document 48 Filed 09/23/13 Page 3 of 42 Page ID#: 759
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................2
I. The DEA Has Violated Intervenors’ Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in their
Prescription Records ...........................................................................................................2
A. Intervenors Have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Their Records in the
PDMP ..........................................................................................................................2
B. Where There is a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, a Warrant is Required ...........6
C. The “Third Party Doctrine” Does Not Apply to Intervenors’ Records .......................7
II. Article III Erects No Barrier to Justiciability of This Case .......................................11
A. Intervenors Need Not Demonstrate Independent Article III Standing .....................11
B. Intervenors Have Article III Standing .......................................................................14
1. Intervenors are suffering actual present injuries that are fairly traceable to
the DEA’s use of administrative subpoenas under 21 U.S.C. § 876 .................15
2. Intervenors face a substantial risk of impending injury from the DEA’s use
of administrative subpoenas under 21 U.S.C. § 876 ..........................................19
3. Dr. Roe has standing to advance the Fourth Amendment rights of his
patients ...............................................................................................................28
C. Intervenors’ Claims are Ripe ....................................................................................32
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................35

i – INTERVENORS’ COMBINED RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF
Case 3:12-cv-02023-HA Document 48 Filed 09/23/13 Page 4 of 42 Page ID#: 760
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) ........................................................................33
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) ......................................................................................15
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) .........................................11, 13
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) .................................20, 34
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) .........................................................................................15
Bd. of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) ..................................20
Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. Reich, 40 F.3d 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ................13
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986) ...................................................................................14
Cal. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Thompson, 321 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2003).....................................12
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) .............................28, 29
Cent. Arizona Water Conservation Dist. v. E.P.A., 990 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir. 1993) ................24
Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) .................................................................................20
Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (1961) .......................................................................9
Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197 (11th Cir. 1989) .....................................................12, 14
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) ................................................... passim
Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) .........................................29
Council of Ins. Agents & Brokers v. Molasky-Arman, 522 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2008)..............24
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) .......................................................................................31
Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986). .........................................................................12, 13
Didrickson v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 982 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1992) .......................................12
Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004) ...........................................................................................23
Doe v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 72 F.3d 1133 (3d Cir. 1995) .....................................................10
Douglas v. Dobbs, 419 F.3d 1097 (10th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................4
Fair Employment Council of Greater Wash., Inc. v. BMC Marketing Corp., 28 F.3d 1268
(D.C. Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................................................29
Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001) .................................................................4
Flores v. Arizona, 516 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2008)....................................................................12
Freedom to Travel Campaign v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1996) .............................33
ii – INTERVENORS’ COMBINED RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF
Case 3:12-cv-02023-HA Document 48 Filed 09/23/13 Page 5 of 42 Page ID#: 761
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) ........................................................................29
Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors, L.A. Cnty., 366 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2004) ..................................20
Hodgson v. United Mine Workers of America, 51 F.R.D. 270 (D.D.C. 1970) ........................13
In re Search Warrant, 810 F.2d 67 (3d Cir. 1987) ..................................................................29
In re Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 51 F. Supp. 2d 726 (W.D. Va. 1999) ....................................29
Jewel v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 673 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2011). ................................................15, 16
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) ...........................................................................7, 9
Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010) .............................................20, 23
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) ..........................................................................4, 27
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ..............................................................14
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ................................................................... passim
Mausolf v. Babbitt, 85 F.3d 1295 (8th Cir. 1996) ....................................................................13
Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) ......................................................19, 24
McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) ...................................................................................13
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) ..................................................................................2
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990)....................................................................................9
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743 (2010) .......................................20, 21
O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987) ................................................................................3
Pagano v. Oroville Hosp., 145 F.R.D. 683 (E.D. Cal. 1993) ..................................................29
Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1 (1988) ........................................................................20
Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2009). ............................11
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2011) .........................................................12
Portland Audubon Soc’y v. Hodel, 866 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1989) .....................................12, 14
Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................11
Purnell v. City of Akron, 925 F.2d 941 (6th Cir. 1991) ...........................................................13
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) .......................................................................................7
Ruiz v. Estelle, 161 F.3d 814 (5th Cir. 1998) ...............................................................12, 13, 14
Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1983) ............................................11
San Diego Cnty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) ...........................18
San Juan Cnty., Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) .................................13
iii – INTERVENORS’ COMBINED RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF
Case 3:12-cv-02023-HA Document 48 Filed 09/23/13 Page 6 of 42 Page ID#: 762
Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 2010) .....................................................................5
Sec’y of State v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947 (1984) ................................................31
Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976) ............................................................................29, 30
Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989).........................................................20
State v. Skinner, 10 So. 3d 1212 (La. 2009) ..............................................................................4
Sterner v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, 467 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (S.D. Cal. 2006) ...............29
Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964) .................................................................................9
Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................14
Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1999) ........................32
Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568 (1985) ........................................33
Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of America, 404 U.S. 528 (1972) ......................................13
Truth v. Kent Sch. Dist., 542 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................34
Tucker v. City of Florence, Ala., 765 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (N.D. Ala. 2011) ..............................28
Tucson Woman’s Clinic v. Eden, 379 F.3d 531 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................................3, 4, 5, 6
U.S. Postal Serv. v. Brennan, 579 F.2d 188 (2d Cir. 1978) .....................................................13
United States v. $100,348.00 in U.S. Currency, 354 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2004) .....................31
United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010) ..........6, 10
United States v. George, No. 1:09cr431 (JCC), 2010 WL 1740814 (E.D. Va. Apr. 26,
2010) .....................................................................................................................................28
United States v. Golden Valley Electric Ass’n, 689 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) .....................7, 8
United States v. Ilayayev, 800 F. Supp. 2d 417 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)............................................28
United States v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 559 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1977) ................................11
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) ........................................................................9
United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012)..........................................................................10
United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950).....................................................................27
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S.
669 (1973) ............................................................................................................................24
United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Mich., S. Div. (“Keith”), 407 U.S. 297
(1972) ...................................................................................................................................17
United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (2010) ..............................................................8, 9, 10
iv – INTERVENORS’ COMBINED RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF
Case 3:12-cv-02023-HA Document 48 Filed 09/23/13 Page 7 of 42 Page ID#: 763
United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 638 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1980) ...............................30
Vill. of Elk Grove Vill. v. Evans, 997 F.2d 328 (7th Cir. 1993) ...............................................21
Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977)..................................................................................3, 4, 5
Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2010). .......................................................32, 34
Yniguez v. Arizona, 939 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1991) ...................................................................11
Statutes
2013 Or. Laws, ch. 550, § 3. ....................................................................................................16
21 U.S.C. § 876 ..................................................................................................................25, 26
50 U.S.C. § 1881a ....................................................................................................................25
Or. Rev. Stat. § 431.966(2)(a)(B) ..............................................................................................9
Or. Rev. Stat. 431.966(2)(a)(C) ...............................................................................................34
Other Authorities
Charlie Savage, N.S.A. Said to Search Content of Messages To and From U.S., N.Y. Times,
Aug. 8, 2013 .........................................................................................................................25
John Shiffman & Kristina Cooke, Exclusive: U.S. Directs Agents to Cover Up Program
Used to Investigate Americans, Reuters (Aug. 5, 2013) ......................................................31
Memorandum from Silvia Calderon, Team Leader Pharmacology, Controlled Substance
Staff, Food & Drug Admin., to Douglas Throckmorton, Deputy Dir., Ctr. for Drug
Evaluation & Research, Food & Drug Admin. 16 (Oct. 2, 2012) ........................................22

v – INTERVENORS’ COMBINED RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF
Case 3:12-cv-02023-HA Document 48 Filed 09/23/13 Page 8 of 42 Page ID#: 764
INTRODUCTION

In their opening brief (ECF No. 28), Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ (“Intervenors”) argue in detail
why they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their prescription records contained in the
Oregon Prescription Monitoring Program (“PDMP”). Instead of responding to these arguments,
Defendant Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) erects a straw man, arguing that
Intervenors have no absolute right to informational privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment.
That is irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment question in this case. Because Intervenors’
prescription records are deeply private and they have not voluntarily relinquished their privacy
interest in the records, a warrant is required for DEA access to them.
In cursory response to Intervenors’ Fourth Amendment arguments, the DEA makes the
remarkable claim that Intervenors have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prescription
records whatsoever. This is both startling and wrong. The confidentiality of medical records and
doctor-patient communications has been a central feature of medical practice from well before
the nation’s founding to the present, and society has long relied on strict limits on their
disclosure. Precisely because prescription records can reveal some of the most sensitive and
closely held information about a person, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in them.
The DEA’s challenge to Intervenors’ standing is similarly unavailing. In the Ninth
Circuit, intervenors need not demonstrate independent Article III standing as long as the original
plaintiff—here, the State of Oregon—has standing and the entry of intervenors does not
eliminate the case or controversy already in existence. Those conditions obtain here. Even if
Intervenors did need to demonstrate standing, however, they would have no trouble doing so.
The DEA’s policy and practice of using administrative subpoenas to request confidential
prescription records from the PDMP, which contains Intervenors’ prescription records, has
1 – INTERVENORS’ COMBINED RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF
Case 3:12-cv-02023-HA Document 48 Filed 09/23/13 Page 9 of 42 Page ID#: 765
already caused injury to Intervenors, and additional injury is imminent. This case raises issues at
the core of the Fourth Amendment, implicating law enforcement’s ability to peer into the most
private and sensitive details of a person’s life. To deny standing to Intervenors would be to
wholly immunize the DEA from Fourth Amendment challenges in all but the smallest number of
cases. This case is properly before the Court, and the DEA cannot avoid scrutiny of its practices.
ARGUMENT

I. The DEA Has Violated Intervenors’ Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in their
Prescription Records

A. Intervenors Have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Their Records in the
PDMP
The DEA fails to respond meaningfully to Intervenors’ claim that the DEA is violating
their reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Instead of arguing that
Intervenors have no reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, the DEA
explains why Intervenors do not have an absolute right to informational privacy under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Def’s Br. 17–21, ECF No. 43. But Intervenors have never argued as
much, and the DEA attempts to imbue the Fourteenth Amendment cases with a significance they
cannot bear.
In their opening brief, Intervenors explained that “[a] reasonable expectation of privacy is
‘one that has a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real
or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.’”
Intervenors’ Br. 11–12 (quoting Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998) (some internal
quotation marks omitted)). Factors relevant to determining which privacy expectations society
accepts as reasonable include, but are not limited to, “‘the intention of the Framers of the Fourth
Amendment, the uses to which the individual has put a location, and our societal understanding
that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion.” Id. at 13
2 – INTERVENORS’ COMBINED RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF
Case 3:12-cv-02023-HA Document 48 Filed 09/23/13 Page 10 of 42 Page ID#: 766
(quoting O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 715 (1987) (plurality opinion) (some internal
quotation marks omitted)). Intervenors identified a number of sources for society’s
understanding that the expectation of privacy in prescription records and the medical information
they reveal is reasonable: case law decided under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
longstanding rules of medical ethics that were known to (and relied on by) the Framers of the
Fourth Amendment and that continue in force today; state laws protecting the privacy of medical
information and prescription records; and judicial and societal recognition that certain
information about patients revealed by their prescription records—such as information about
sexuality, mental health, and substance abuse—is particularly sensitive and deserving of
heightened protection. Id. at 13–29.
The DEA offers no response to most of Intervenors’ arguments, focusing solely on
Intervenors’ citation of Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), and its progeny, which discuss the
right to informational privacy in medical information under the Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Clause. See Def’s Br. 17–22. The DEA correctly observes that neither Whalen nor the
courts of appeals cases that followed it establish an absolute right to informational privacy. See,
e.g., Tucson Woman’s Clinic v. Eden, 379 F.3d 531, 551 (9th Cir. 2004). But Intervenors have
not cited them for that proposition, nor do they rely on the balancing test announced in these
cases for their Fourth Amendment claim. Rather, Intervenors cite the informational privacy cases
simply as one source (among many) indicating that society believes people have a privacy
interest in their medical information. Intervenors’ Br. 15–18. The cases “speak to the widespread
acceptance, and thus the reasonableness, of privacy protections for medical records.” Id. at 15.
The rights to privacy under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are not coextensive,
and the tests under the two standards are not the same. In Due Process Clause cases, courts first
3 – INTERVENORS’ COMBINED RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF