People v. Greene
9 N.Y.3d 277, 879 N.E.2d 1280 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence obtained as a result of a violation of the statutory physician-patient privilege is not subject to the exclusionary rule and does not require suppression in a criminal trial, as the privilege is not a constitutional right.
Facts:
- Anthony Berrios was shot to death on October 16, 2001.
- Investigating Detective Michael Elliott learned from the victim's aunt that the shooting may have stemmed from a fight three days prior, in which a man was slashed in the face.
- Elliott went to a local hospital and asked an administrator if anyone had been treated for a facial slashing on the date of the fight.
- The hospital administrator provided the defendant's name and address to the detective.
- This information allowed police to obtain a photograph of the defendant, which was then identified by a witness to the shooting.
- The information from the hospital ultimately led to more evidence against the defendant.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was prosecuted for second degree manslaughter in the New York Supreme Court, which is a trial-level court.
- Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the hospital's disclosure, arguing it violated the physician-patient privilege.
- The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion to suppress.
- Following a conviction, the defendant (as appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that either there was no privilege violation or that suppression was not the required remedy.
- A Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, granted the defendant (as appellant) leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the violation of the statutory physician-patient privilege require the suppression of evidence obtained as a result of that violation in a criminal proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
No. The violation of the statutory physician-patient privilege does not require the suppression of evidence obtained as a result of the violation. The physician-patient privilege is a creation of statute (CPLR 4504), not a right protected by the State or Federal Constitution. A violation of a statute, without more, does not justify suppressing the evidence to which that violation leads. The court has only created an exception to this rule when the principal purpose of the statute is to protect a constitutional right, such as the Fourth Amendment rights safeguarded by statutes governing search warrants and wiretaps. The physician-patient privilege does not serve to protect individuals against government conduct; rather, it regulates a private relationship. Therefore, to suppress evidence and punish the State for a hospital's misconduct would be an inappropriate remedy and an ineffective deterrent.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for applying the exclusionary rule, limiting its application primarily to violations of constitutional rights. It clarifies that statutory privileges, such as the physician-patient privilege, do not carry the same weight as constitutional protections against government overreach. The ruling establishes that the source of the right—constitutional versus statutory—is the key determinant for whether suppression is a viable remedy. This prevents the expansion of the exclusionary rule into non-constitutional areas and places the burden of compliance with such statutes on the private actors they govern, not on the state's ability to prosecute crimes.
