Change Page Size of List
Page Size  
No record to display
Summary:

All people have an inalienable right to privacy, although there are situations in which the individual's right to privacy is limited by certain conditions. Cases specify that 1) a defendant in §1983 civil rights action cannot rely on privacy right to withhold medical records from treating physician contained in worker's compensation file; 2) crime victim's privacy to medical records must be balanced against defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination;3) health plan's disclosure to attorneys of medical information of patients contemplating or making medical malpractice claims did not violate right to privacy; 4) sperm donor non-identifying medical information can be released to sperm purchaser (parents, child); 5) intercollegiate drug testing monitoring by urine tests OK because student's privacy interests reduced by voluntary participation in sport.)

Keywords:
judicial
Summary:

People have a right to be secure in their belongings without unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant specifying what is to be searched. (The seizure of business files, such as the medical records of a doctor where the medical records were freely open to the doctor's employees, is not unlawful. People v. Thayer, 63 Cal 2d 635 (1965))

Summary:

A criminal defendant has the right to compel and confront witnesses. (A court has held that a defendant had right to confront and cross-examine psychiatrists and psychologists testifying against him in pretrial hearing.)

Keywords:
judicial
Summary:

The state constitution holds that persons may not be compelled in a criminal cause to be a witness against themselves, but it does not prevent the prosecution from obtaining information from third party to prove its case. (In a murder prosecution, the state served subpoenas duces tecum seeking records from mental health professionals who had treated or tested defendant.)

Keywords:
judicial
Summary:

Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press. In Hurvitz v. Hoefflin, the court held that a pretrial order (in consolidated actions involving claims pending between cosmetic surgeon, whose patients included many celebrities, surgeon's former business partner, and numerous former employees of surgeon) that barred disclosure of any information which would identity any patient treated by surgeon was an impermissible prior restraint in violation of First Amendment and State Constitution.

Summary:

Relevant evidence shall not be excluded in criminal proceedings; however, nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay. (A court case held that psychotherapist-patient privilege is not required to yield to the state's interest in successful criminal prosecutions and their state constitutional right to due process of law.) (Another case has held that a hospital record is admissible in evidence when relevant to an issue and when a proper foundation has been laid; Hospital records are "business records" within meaning of the Uniform Business Records As Evidence Act, and are admissible as such.)

Now viewing : Page 1 of 1 first     previous     next     last