Could a treatment facility help officers arrest a patient named in a warrant without violating confidentiality rules?

Plain-English summary

Louisiana's health department asked how a substance-use treatment facility could respond when officers arrived with an arrest warrant for a person receiving treatment there. In Opinion 03-0209, the AG concluded that facilities should cooperate to the fullest extent with officers who held a warrant for a person at the facility.

The office treated confidentiality and arrest as distinct concerns. It said simply acknowledging a person's presence might not be a disclosure of treatment records, especially where officers already knew or had reason to believe the person was there. It also said calling an unsuspecting patient to the front office, where officers waited to execute a valid warrant, likely would be permissible. The opinion used cautious terms on those questions; it did not announce that every disclosure about a patient was permitted.

Currency note

The full issue date is not legible in the available official extract. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant at issuance

Treatment facilities

The AG urged full cooperation with officers who had an arrest warrant for someone at the facility. It described a front-office call as likely permissible, while treating an acknowledgement of presence as something that might fall outside the treatment-record disclosure rule.

Law enforcement officers

The opinion cited state arrest provisions allowing arrests at any time and place and, under stated conditions, forcible entry. Its conclusion addressed officers who had a warrant for the individual at the facility.

Common questions

Q: Did the AG tell treatment facilities to refuse officers who had an arrest warrant? A: No. Its conclusion said the facilities should cooperate with those officers to the fullest extent.

Q: Could staff confirm that the person was at the facility? A: The AG said mere acknowledgement might not be a treatment-record disclosure, particularly if officers already knew or had reason to believe the person was there. It did not make an unconditional ruling for every disclosure.

Q: Could staff call the person to the front office for the arrest? A: The opinion said that step likely would be permissible when officers presented a valid arrest warrant.

Q: Did the opinion authorize release of a patient's complete treatment file? A: No. It discussed presence and the mechanics of an arrest, then concluded that facilities should cooperate with warrant-holding officers.

Background and statutory framework

The request posed questions about federal treatment-record confidentiality, arrest warrants, and an unannounced bench warrant. The opinion discussed 42 C.F.R. § 2.11 and 42 USCA § 290dd-2, along with 18 USCA § 1071 on concealing a person from arrest. It quoted Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure provisions on arrest time and place and forcible entry. The AG did not give a separate categorical answer to whether a court order under federal treatment-record rules was required for every arrest.

Citations and references

Federal provisions cited: 42 C.F.R. § 2.11; 42 USCA § 290dd-2; 18 USCA § 1071.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/03-0209

Original opinion text

P.O. BOX 94095
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804-9095
RICHARD P. IEYOUB CRIMINAL DIVISION Telephone:
ATTORNEY GENERAL
(225; 342-7552
FAX’:
Opinion 03-0209
(225) 342-7893

MAY 2_003
60 Law Officers - Authority & Jurisdiction Frank H. Perez
General Counsel
42 C.F.R. § 2.11; 42 USCA § 290dd-2; Mosierv. American Home
Patient, Inc., 170 F.Supp.2d 1211; 18 USCA § 1071; LA C. Cr. P.
Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hospitals Art. 216; LA C. Cr. P. Art 224; Mulholland v. Dietz Co., 896
Bureau of Legal Services
F.Supp.179; U.S. v. Hopper, 440 F.Supp 1208; O’Boyle V.
1201 Capitol Access Road
Jensen, 150 F.R.D. 519; People v. Silkworth, N.Y.City Crim. Ct.
1989, 538 N.Y.S.2d 692, 142 Misc.2d 752.
P.O. Box 3836
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3837
Programltreatment facilities should cooperate to the fullest extent
with local law enforcement officers who have an arrest warrant for an individual at such a facility.

Dear Mr. Perez:

This office has received your opinion request containing the following questions:

       1) When presented with an arrest warrant, to what extent                                    may       a

prog, ~m/tFe~ttmt:::~ ’t facih ty cooperate with local law enfo, ~.~,, ,en,;

2) Is local law enforcement required to obtain a court order pursuant to the procedures set forth in 42 C.F.R. 2 et seq. when making an arrest of an individual being treated at a treatment facility?

3) What are a program/treatment facility’s responsibilities if it has not been notified in advance and local law enforcement presents a bench warrant for failing to appear on underlying charges of possession of a controlled substance, possession of a weapon or probation violation?

4) Would it be permissible for a program/treatment facility, when presented with a valid arrest warrant, to call the unknowing patient to the front office where law enforcement officials are waiting to execute the arrest warrant or would such a procedure violate 42 C.F.R. 2 et seq.?

The simple acknowledgement of an individual’s presence at a facility may not necessarily be included under the definition of "disclosure of records" as it is found in 42 C.F.R. § 2.11. Although the statute does specify that a record can be information 4hat ~is recorded or ~not recorded~ the acknowledgement of--an individual’s presence at a facility is not necessarily a communication that the individual is receiving treatment at the facility and might not fall under the statute.
Additionally, if the police officers have an arrest warrant for the individual and already know or have reason to believe that the individual is at the facility, mere

Page 2

Frmak H. Perez
OPINION 03-0209
Page 2

acknowledgement that the individual is there may not be a disc!osure of the patient’s record under the statute.

Generally whenever there is a conflict between federal law and state law, .the federal law will take priority over the state law. This would seem to mean that 42 USCA § 290dd-2 would be the law to which the facilities should_look first before the state law concerning arrest. However, as you pointed out in your request letter, the intent of the legislature in enacting the federal records confidentiality statute was not to make these treatment facilities a safe harbor from arrest, but rather, to encourage individuals dealing with drug or alcohol addictions to seek treatment. Mosier v. American Home Patient, Inc., N.D. Fla. 2001, 170 F.Supp.2d 1211.

18 USCA § 1071 illustrates this point by providing penalties for the act of concealing someone from arrest.

18 USCA § 1071 reads as follows:

§!07!. Concealing person from arrest

Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shal! be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant of process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine of [sic] under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

Furthermore, according to pertinent state law, there are virtually no restrictions on the time or place of an arrest.

LA C. Cr. P. Art. 216 reads as

Art. 216. Time and place of making arrest

An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night, and at anyplace

LA C. Cr. P. Art 224 reads as follows:

Art.. 224. Forcible entry in making arrest

Page 3

Frank H. Perez
OPINION 03-0209
Page 3

In order to make an arrest, a peace officer, who has announced his authority and purpose, may break open an outer or inner door or window of any vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling, or other structure, movable or immovable, where the person to be arrested is or is reasonable believed to be, if he is refused or otherwise obstructed from admittance. The peace officer need not announce his authority and purpose when to do so would imperil the arrest.

In other words, not only can an arrest be made at any place at any time, but forcible entry also may be used to make an arrest if necessary.

Additionally, there are exceptions to 42 USCA §290dd-2 under the theory of "good cause."

In Mulholland v. Dietz Co., E.D.Pa.1994, 896 F.Supp.179, a personal injury plaintiff’s medical records were subject to disclosure when the plaintiff had admitted to having a drug problem at the time of the accident and defendants alleged that the plaintiffs injuries may have been caused by his own conduct.

!n U.S.v. Hopper, D.C.!!!. !977, 440 F.Supp !208, the court held that where the defendant had been convicted of distribution of heroin, where he had been placed on probation and ordered to participate in community oriented drug program, and where uninalysis performed at correction center indicated positive reaction for morphine-quinine, Government’s request for subpoena duces tecum directed to hospital at which the drug program was conducted would be granted.

In O’Boyle v. Jensen, M.D.Pa. 1993, 150 F.R.D. 519, good cause existed for release of arrestee’s medical records during discovery in § 1983 action to recover for arrestee’s death while in police custody, even though records contained reference to treatment for drug and alcohol abuse and were therefore confidential; possibility could not be ruled out that death resulted from preexisting condition related to alcoholism or drug abuse.

In Peotgle
¯ ""’---"’-. N.Y.CItv. ’~-
v. ollt’,WOtttt.
"
,.,nm. Ct. 1989, 538 N.Y.S.2d 692, 142 Misc.2d 752, good cause for release of a probationer’s drug treatment records to.the Department of Probation without his consent was found because of the strong public interest in having person’s convicted of crime complete their sentences and the need for enhanced supervision by the Department and the court.

15--li~h-f-Sf-th-~-~t~t-6 ar--rf~-t statutes provi6ing that an arrest can take place anywhere at any time and forcible entry can even be used, it would likely be found that there is a strong public interest in allowing police to carry out their duties of arrest unimpeded and that this interest outweighs any harm that may come from allowing the police officers to enter a facility and go and get the individual for whose arrest they have a warrant.

Page 4

Frank H. Perez
OPINION 03-0209
Page 4

It likely would be permissible for a program/treatment facility, when presented with a valid arrest warrant, to call the unknowing patient to the front office where law enforcement officials are waiting to execute the arrest warrant.

In conclusion, it is the opinion of this office that the treatment facilities in question should cooperate to the fullest extent with local law enforcement officers who have an arrest warrant for an individual at such facility.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:
JAM~
AS~
,ATTORNEY GENERAL

JLP/cs/jy