I emailed Guilford County Sheriff B.J. Barnes (R) and his election challenger Phil Wadsworth (D) to get their opinions on the proposal. I would like to thank both men for their quick and serious replies.
The question I originally asked was:
Do you agree with the position of the N.C. Sheriffs Association that law enforcement have access to the state's computerized list of people with prescriptions for pain killers and other controlled substances?Wadsworth's answer:
No, I don't agree with this.Barnes' took exception with the premise of my question:
No, nor does the Sheriff's Association agree with what the paper wrote.* Our interest is to get the access the DEA and SBI have when we are working on a case where we have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed. I would never support just a blanket access, we have NO business with that nor does anyone else.Fair enough, but I was left wondering:
Would you have any objection to requiring a search warrant first -- so that a judge can determine if there is probable cause?Barnes replied:
The issue is doctor shopping and forged prescriptions and people abusing the system. Without a complaint or information from a identifiable source we would not have reason to look into anyone's history. You need these things as a basis for our investigation before looking into anyone's private information. We use probable cause as a basis for every arrest and search warrant we do. That's the process we use now. The state has eleven officers who have access to these records now to help stop the aforementioned violations, what the sheriff's are looking for is some not all officers to assist with those investigations, especially in the smaller counties where resources are sparse.I still wasn't sure I understood where Barnes stood and I did not want to jump to any conclusions or read between the lines, so I had two more questions for Barnes:
Do you support the proposed change? Is there any criteria for how the selected personnel would be selected?His reply:
No, only criteria on how and when it would be accessed. I can't tell you if I support it or not, I would need to see the legislation that would make it a possibility. I support the concept but I want see how they intend on it working. I'm not for anything that would impede law enforcement, but I will not support anything that stomps on individual rights.
[Note: Extraneous information edited from answers. The portions of answers included here are contiguous -- no internal edits.]
[* Barnes made this comment before the N&R published the story referred to above.]
Little Johnny is caught selling oxycontin, LEOs look into the database and find out that granny has a script for oxy, they get a warrant and count granny's pills.
ReplyDeleteGranny hasn't spoken to johnny in over a year but that doesn't matter, let's find an angle or circumstantial connection and charge her with supplying johnny with oxy.
Nevermind bother a little old lady with intimidation and legal threats.
It looks as though Barnes is responding to the wire story rather than my story, which was a little clearer about how access works.
ReplyDeleteBut still...I'm not sure what his beef was with the wire story. The version I read didn't make it seem as though they were seeking unfettered, blanket access and in fact the version that ran in our paper included part of an interview I added with a gentleman from DHHS describing what he would think was an acceptable way for them to gain access while preserving privacy (to the extent it can be preserved while using such a list).
Thanks for commenting, Joe. I noted in a footnote that your article was published after Barnes made that comment.
ReplyDeleteYeah - thanks for that.
ReplyDeleteI don't dispute that some people are misunderstanding what's actually being proposed. I've spoken with those people.
But I don't think the misunderstanding is coming from the media. Not media I've seen, anyway.