Re: Border Patrol vs. HIPAA

[Guest guest]

Border Patrol wins. First, they have the right to do " border searches "

without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Second, you can't win with

them.

They've got the guns and you don't. So best thing is to cooperate.

GG

>

> Do any other providers along the (Mexican) border have this problem .

>

> We're transferring a patient to another medical center away from the border

> and stop at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection check point. The driver of

> the ambulance stops and is asked by an agent if he is a U.S. citizen, where

> are you going, who's in the back, etc. while the handler and dog move around

> the back for a sniff. The agent with the dog asks that the back door be open

> because the dog has detected hidden humans. The driver gets out, opens the

> back door and the attending medic is then asked of his citizenship as well

> as the patient's.

>

> My questions are how far do we allow the agent to search the ambulance and

> make patient contact before it becomes a privacy violation? Who has more

> rights: the patient or the quest for safer borders? What would the agent do

> if the medic or patient states that the patient is a Mexican (or other

> country) citizen?

>

> We've addressed this problem with the sector chief in the past but the issue

> is challenged occasionally.

>

> Solutions?

>

> Susie Jechow, LP

>

> Del Rio

>

>

[Guest guest]

You bring up a good point. Susie didn't make it clear just how far from the

border they were at the time of the stop, whether it's one of the permanant

check points, or a roving temporary one, and so forth. From her description,

no search took place; only verification of ID, which they have a right to do.

Now, things can get complicated really fast if the patient's emergent, the

stop takes too long, they start going through the truck, and so forth. They

would only have, under HIPAA, the right to identifying information, not

information about condition and care, but the BP is not covered by HIPAA, and

there's

no remedy under HIPAA against them.

The only remedy is suppression of any evidence they turned up, if, in fact,

the search were determined to be bad, or a 1983 civil rights suit, almost

impossible to succeed in.

So, as usual, the facts rule.

When I was a federal prosecutor I argued many border search cases and never

lost one, but as I said, the facts were with me.

Cops can make things very difficult for both ambulance crews and patients if

they choose to. The remedies for bad conduct come later and are far from

satisfactory. Further, most disagreements occur because somebody acts the fool

during the incident. Fools exist on all sides. LOL.

GG

>

> Gene,

>

> What do you make of this:

>

> http://law.onecle.http://law.oneclhttp://law.http://law.onhttp://lahttp

>

> That states in Almeida- v. United States that inland border searches

> without probable cause / reasonable suspicion violate the 4th Amendment

> right against unreasonable searches. I would think that this case applied at

> places like the Sarita checkpoint, which is actually quite some distance

> from the border?

>

> I'm no lawyer and I might be interpreting things wrong but - I think that

> this person's question applies to the inland checkpoints and not the actual

> border itself.

>

> Joe Percer, LP

>

> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:12 AM, <wegandy1938@wegandy> wrote:

>

> > Border Patrol wins. First, they have the right to do " border searches "

> > without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Second, you can't win with

> > them.

> > They've got the guns and you don't. So best thing is to cooperate.

> >

> > GG

> >

> > In a message dated 11/14/08 9:26:48 PM, paddler@...<

> paddler%40stx.paddle>writes:

> >

> > >

> > > Do any other providers along the (Mexican) border have this problem .

> > >

> > > We're transferring a patient to another medical center away from the

> > border

> > > and stop at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection check point. The driver

> > of

> > > the ambulance stops and is asked by an agent if he is a U.S. citizen,

> > where

> > > are you going, who's in the back, etc. while the handler and dog move

> > around

> > > the back for a sniff. The agent with the dog asks that the back door be

> > open

> > > because the dog has detected hidden humans. The driver gets out, opens

> > the

> > > back door and the attending medic is then asked of his citizenship as

> > well

> > > as the patient's.

> > >

> > > My questions are how far do we allow the agent to search the ambulance

> > and

> > > make patient contact before it becomes a privacy violation? Who has more

> > > rights: the patient or the quest for safer borders? What would the agent

> > do

> > > if the medic or patient states that the patient is a Mexican (or other

> > > country) citizen?

> > >

> > > We've addressed this problem with the sector chief in the past but the

> > issue

> > > is challenged occasionally.

> > >

> > > Solutions?

> > >

> > > Susie Jechow, LP

> > >

> > > Del Rio

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, you are going to run into this(problem) thanks to people using

ambulances to smuggle human cargo, as well as " other " cargo. Border Patrol

agents stopped an ambulance one time early in the morning with a patient going

to dialysis. The ambulance was coming out of a ranch dirt road. This occurred

about eight years ago and it would not surprise me one bit if it still is

occurring--- the stops and the smuggling.

Subject: Border Patrol vs. HIPAA

To: texasems-l

Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 10:26 PM

Do any other providers along the (Mexican) border have this problem .

We're transferring a patient to another medical center away from the border

and stop at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection check point. The driver of

the ambulance stops and is asked by an agent if he is a U.S. citizen, where

are you going, who's in the back, etc. while the handler and dog move around

the back for a sniff. The agent with the dog asks that the back door be open

because the dog has detected hidden humans. The driver gets out, opens the

back door and the attending medic is then asked of his citizenship as well

as the patient's.

My questions are how far do we allow the agent to search the ambulance and

make patient contact before it becomes a privacy violation? Who has more

rights: the patient or the quest for safer borders? What would the agent do

if the medic or patient states that the patient is a Mexican (or other

country) citizen?

We've addressed this problem with the sector chief in the past but the issue

is challenged occasionally.

Solutions?

Susie Jechow, LP

Del Rio

[Guest guest]

Gene,

What do you make of this:

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-04/18-border-searches.html

That states in Almeida- v. United States that inland border searches

without probable cause / reasonable suspicion violate the 4th Amendment

right against unreasonable searches. I would think that this case applied at

places like the Sarita checkpoint, which is actually quite some distance

from the border?

I'm no lawyer and I might be interpreting things wrong but - I think that

this person's question applies to the inland checkpoints and not the actual

border itself.

Joe Percer, LP

> Border Patrol wins. First, they have the right to do " border searches "

> without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Second, you can't win with

> them.

> They've got the guns and you don't. So best thing is to cooperate.

>

> GG

>

> In a message dated 11/14/08 9:26:48 PM,

paddler@...<paddler%40stx.rr.com>writes:

>

> >

> > Do any other providers along the (Mexican) border have this problem .

> >

> > We're transferring a patient to another medical center away from the

> border

> > and stop at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection check point. The driver

> of

> > the ambulance stops and is asked by an agent if he is a U.S. citizen,

> where

> > are you going, who's in the back, etc. while the handler and dog move

> around

> > the back for a sniff. The agent with the dog asks that the back door be

> open

> > because the dog has detected hidden humans. The driver gets out, opens

> the

> > back door and the attending medic is then asked of his citizenship as

> well

> > as the patient's.

> >

> > My questions are how far do we allow the agent to search the ambulance

> and

> > make patient contact before it becomes a privacy violation? Who has more

> > rights: the patient or the quest for safer borders? What would the agent

> do

> > if the medic or patient states that the patient is a Mexican (or other

> > country) citizen?

> >

> > We've addressed this problem with the sector chief in the past but the

> issue

> > is challenged occasionally.

> >

> > Solutions?

> >

> > Susie Jechow, LP

> >

> > Del Rio

> >

> >