Man Charged With HIPAA Violations For Video Taping Police

Bob the Super Hamste writes "The St. Paul Pioneer Press is reporting that Andrew Henderson was recording Ramsey County sheriff's deputies frisking a bloody-faced man, who was then loaded into an ambulance by paramedics. Then sheriff's deputy Jacqueline Muellner approached Henderson and confiscated his video camera, stating, 'We'll just take this for evidence,' which was recorded on Henderson's cell phone. On October 30th, Henderson went to the Arden Hills sheriff's office to retrieve his video camera, where he was told where he would have to wait to receive his camera back. A week later, Henderson was charged with obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct, with the citation stating, 'While handling a medical/check the welfare (call), (Henderson) was filming it. Data privacy HIPAA violation. Refused to identify self. Had to stop dealing with sit(uation) to deal w/Henderson.' In mid November, Henderson went back to the sheriff's office to attempt to retrieve his camera and get a copy of the report when Deputy Dan Eggers refused. ... Jennifer Granick, a specialist on privacy issues at Stanford University Law School, states that the alleged violation of HIPAA rules by Andrew Henderson is nonsense, stating, 'There's nothing in HIPAA that prevents someone who's not subject to HIPAA from taking photographs on the public streets, HIPAA has absolutely nothing to say about that.'" The article notes that the Deputy in question basically told the guy he was arrested for being a "buttinski" and recording someone in the midst of a violent mental health breakdown. Supposedly the footage was deleted from the camera while in police custody.

Comments

This absolutely makes sense.

[xyourfacekillerx]

The charges will probably be dropped for political reasons, but as a person whose family mostly consists of medical professionals (doctor, surgeon, psychiatrist, psychologist, two RN's, two FNP's, a naval surgeon, an EMT, a BSN with FNP. ...) they take HIPPA matters like it's sacred. Someone getting hauled off in an ambulance constitutes a medical action. The privacy is intended for the individual, who has to waive his/her rights so that others may possess or even review documentation of these medical events. Any time care is provided (both "provide" and "care" have broad meanings, btw), HIPPA kicks in. It's between you and the provider. So, the man should not have filmed the event if the man had not already received release from the patient to obtain that information. The key word here is documentation. Eye witness accounts are moot because they are not documentation. A/V Recordings are documentation. It's tantamount to roaming a hospital ward and reading people's personal medical charts. Do you get it?

Oh, and sorry so many of you have never ever been in a situation where HIPPA has been to your benefit. I'm guessing all of you have been, you just don't know it. Every time you see a doctor or fill an Rx or file an insurance claim, HIPPA is protecting you. At any rate, I, for one, would not want it documented by some random person that I was carried off in an ambulance. Who are you to waive MY right to privacy? Who are you to say MY privacy concerns are outweighed by your "information is free" mantra?