Honking a Car Horn is Not Protected Free Speech
In a landmark First Amendment decision that will disappoint drivers everywhere, the Washington Court of Appeals has ruled that honking a car horn is not necessarily protected speech.
As you might not expect, the case arose from a dispute about chickens.
Helen Immelt, of Monroe, Washington, got a letter one day from her homeowners’ association informing her that neighborhood rules prohibited her from keeping chickens in her yard. This infuriated Immelt, who stormed over to a neighbor’s house and accused him of reporting her. According to court documents, the neighbor called the police after becoming concerned by Immelt’s “accusations, threats and demeanor.” At some point, other neighbors also showed up, and one of the latter unwisely confessed that he had been the one to complain.
At 5:50 the next morning, the honking began.
The neighbor called 911 to report that Immelt was parked in front of his house, leaning on the car horn, which she did continuously for about ten minutes. She then drove away, but soon drove back by the house, “waving to him as she passed by.” Immelt later called the man and said she wanted to make sure he had gotten his “6 a.m. wake-up call.” Another honking session took place two hours later.
Police arrived to ask Immelt to cut it out. Becoming “heated,” she allegedly told police that her horn didn’t even work (though witnesses had seen and heard her honking it), but soon changed her story to a claim that the horn went off by itself. These stories could be reconciled, let’s say if the car has an electrical problem that causes the horn to “not work” correctly by self-honking for extended periods of time while also immobilizing the car in front of the house of a person she hates. Or she might have made this up.
Apparently not buying the defective-horn story, the officer told Immelt that he would arrest her if the honking continued and then went over to get a statement from the neighbor. As he was doing that, Immelt allegedly drove by the house and unleashed three long horn blasts. Arrest followed.
Immelt was charged with violating a noise ordinance, and felt strongly enough about the matter that she took the case to trial. She lost. She then appealed, arguing that the ordinance was vague and overbroad and so her First Amendment rights had been infringed. A good try, but the court ruled otherwise.
“Horn honking per se,” it held, “is not speech,” and so not protected. But there is some hope for those of us who prefer to express ourselves by car horn. Honking might qualify as speech, the court said, if the honker has “the intent to convey a particularized message in circumstances where it is likely the message would be understood.” (Or maybe if you honk in Morse code?) The court held, however, that “horn honking which is done to annoy or harass others is not speech.” I still think this means that the “particularized message” I intend to convey when somebody cuts me off on the highway might just be protected speech, but this seems like an awfully fine line.
That message, of course, is: “Pardon me, sir, but I wish to alert you to the fact that your sudden maneuver has resulted in an inadequate and unsafe distance of separation between our two vehicles. I have tootled at you due to my belief that the problem is due to inadvertence, not any lack of courtesy on your part. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ”
The neighbor who was honked at said he thought the ruling was the right one for society. “If courts start ruling that blowing a horn at 6 a.m. on a Saturday is constitutionally protected free speech,” he warned, “then we’re headed toward chaos a lot faster than we already are.”
[via loweringthebar]
The Celebrity California UCLA Medical Center Scandal: Snooping on Celeb Records
A serious breach of doctor-patient confidentiality has occurred within the California Department of Public Health. Sources establish that there are now 127 UCLA Medical Center employees who have made less-than-innocent peeks at celebrity medical profiles. This is one of the most controversial medical scandals in recent history, and the news is only now starting to heat up. While this issue has only bubbled to the surface now, the California Department of Public Health has cited similar occurrences from as way back as January 2004. They are also hinting that there may be other undetected cases prior to 2004 and others they are currently investigating right now.
Initially, only 67 University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Medical Center employees were associated with this behavior. However, recent investigations prove that the number is actually almost double that.
Naturally, the UCLA Medical Center is not taking this news in stride. Moved to action with an increasingly disapproving public, administrators have already made several internal memos to employees that the center is undergoing a major crack-down on these “peeping-tom” perpetrators who not only have viewed sensitive information about these celebrities but have also sent this supposedly private information (which includes medical history and known ailments) to friends, family, and the media.
This scandal began in the middle of April of 2008 year by the actions of two nurses and an emergency room technician. The three logged onto the medical center’s computer database on various occasions to find out details about various “well-known individuals” and their medical records captured in this database. When the police investigation started, more and more employees were added to this original list of those who not only gained improper access to medical records but then also revealed this information to friends and family. At this point, the list balloons to an astounding 127 involved in this highly unethical behavior, ultimately breaching doctor-patient confidentiality.
What Is Doctor-Patient Confidentiality?
Although patient-doctor confidentiality is often cited as a law, it is considered more of a code of ethics for medical practitioners. This practice is taken by physicians as part of the Hippocratic Oath, wherein an individual’s affliction or medical state is never released to the general public without a written court order. This is, of course, done for the benefit of the patient.
This careful handling of information centers itself usually around the doctor, the patient and the patient’s immediate family. In some extreme cases, the patient in question may even ask the doctor to restrict the information further from his or her immediately family – this is perfectly allowable. The reason why doctor-patient confidentiality is so highly treasured is because this practice is a way of easing the mental strain of patients who may have issues about (what they may consider as embarrassing) medical conditions.
Subpoenaing medical records is not a light matter. Even in extremely difficult litigation or divorce cases, medical records are often off-limits. When medical records are actually subpoenaed, each state has varying degrees as to the amount of information that can be leaked for the interested parties.
Legal privilege is defined as the right to withhold evidence (which can include medical records such as diagnosis, treatments and follow through procedures) from the attention of the general public. The doctor-patient privilege also extends itself to prevent those who have had “special relationships” with the patient from divulging any facts pertaining to the said person’s health conditions.
The term “special relationships” can be tricky, as these involve a lot of people. This can be a conference between attorney and patient; family members and patient; guardian and their wards; priest (confessor or confidants and patient; and of course: doctor and patient.
However, there are also disclosure laws wherein patients are required to release medical conditions voluntarily. A good example of this would be the State of California, in which case any patients undergoing psychiatric and/or psychotherapeutic care must waive their doctor-patient confidentiality rights in the event that they become involved in civil lawsuits. This is evidenced in Section 1016 of the Evidence Rules.
Psychiatrists and psychotherapists also have the right to withhold vital medical records. This is in case the medical practitioner feels that the release of such information will damage the patient’s mental health further. This is evidenced in H&S Section 1795.12 and Section 1795.14.
Key Points About Doctor-Patient Confidentiality
- The confidentiality issue only governs a relationship between a doctor and his or her patient that is being treated currently or has been treated sometime in the past. All information gathered between conferences (consultations, examinations, treatments and follow-throughs) whether in person or not, is considered confidential.
- Different states have different interpretations of doctor-patient confidentiality and doctor-patient privilege.
- The confidentiality issue should continue even if the patient switches to another medical practitioner, or stops consulting the doctor altogether.
- Depending on the situation, a doctor may disclose facts about a patient’s personal information, but only under very limited instances.
Celebrity Medical Scandal Extends to Social Security Numbers
This scandal has certainly taken a toll on some of the more famous patrons of UCLA Medical Center. According to the investigations being held by the California Department of Public Health, the medical records of known media personalities such as actress Farrah Fawcett, California’s first lady Maria Shriver, and pop singer Britney Spears have been privy to the inquisitive eyes of those under investigation.
However, the damage doesn’t end there. Some of this information viewed may have been leaked to the media – with the individuals leaking this information labeled as “reliable hospital source” in news stories – as if this was an ethical practice.
This is definitely not something the public relations department of the UCLA Medical Center wants to have to deal with. Nonetheless, the Department of Public Health blames the medical center administrators for the relatively lax security when it comes to medical records. In regards to the mid-April incident, one nurse was fired, and the other two hospital employees (the other nurse and the emergency room technician) have so far received nothing more than administrative warnings.
More recent investigations show that a former administrative specialist named Lawanda Jackson, who now faces criminal charges for violating Farrah Fawcett’s privacy, actually accessed medical documents of more than 900 patients in a span of 49 months – from April 2003 to May of last year. This employee purposefully record patients’ social security numbers – among other private data. Investigations as to how Jackson used the said information are still rather inconclusive. Records are conclusive though in the fact that hospital administration did manage to ignore various reports from other employees that some were taking advantage of this sensitive infomation. Jackson continued to work for the hospital up until the actress Fawcett filed a formal court complaint. The aftermath of this lawsuit led to the indictment of this administrative specialist on the 19th of April 2008.
Dr. David Feinberg, chief executive of the UCLA Health System, assures the remaining patrons of the hospital that the administration will be doing all it can to improve the medical center’s system security.
Do you feel that medical employees snooping on private information is a rare occurrance or does this happen more than we would like to admit?
Dippin’ Dots v. Mosey: The Attorney Fee Appeals
2008-13379/2008-1125 Dippin’ Dots v. Mosey
ND/TX 3:96-cv-1959
Dippin’ Dots appeals from Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr.’s orders awarding over $3.2 million in attorney fees to defendants under § 285. Note that Judge Thrash is from the ND/GA.
This action has a long history and began in 1996 when Dippin’ Dots sued Mosey asserting infringement of 5,126,156 and trade dress, all related to a cryogenically frozen ice cream product. Additional defendants were added and counterclaims, including those of the antitrust flavor, were asserted. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the trade dress claim (affirmed by 11th Circuit here), and, after a jury trial, a judgment was entered of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability. Defendants also prevailed on the Walker-Process antitrust counterclaim, but were awarded no damages. The CAFC mostly affirmed, but reversed on the antitrust counterclaim.
Attorneys Fees. In 2005 the court had awarded one group of defendants (the Manufacturing Parties) $1.9 million in attorneys fees and another (Frosty Bites) $676,000, both under the Clayton Act. Frosty Bites also received $504,000 under § 285.
The Clayton Act awards were vacated when the CAFC reversed at to the Walker-Process claim. However, at that time a CAFC motions panel ruled that the § 285 award order had not been appealed.
Now, on remand, the court took up the issue of whether to award attorney fees under § 285 to “replace” those vacated under the Clayton Act. The court apparently had not made a § 285 award previously because those fees would have been “duplicative” of those awarded under the Clayton Act.
The court ruled that the case was exceptional and, although the antitrust judgment was vacated, noted that it did not change the finding that Dippin’ Dots had committed fraud and inequitable conduct before the PTO. Thus, the court granted the requested fees, less a small amount attributable to the trade dress claim. The court rejected Dippin’ Dots request to exclude fees attributable to the antitrust claim, noting that the issues between that claim and the patent claims were so intertwined so as to permit recovery.
The newest appeal has been consolidated with 2008-1125, which had been deactivated. The district court also granted a partial stay of enforcement–but not to original § 285 award for $504,000 which the court said could not be appealed based on the failure to include it in the previous appeal. However, the CAFC has granted a temporary stay of enforcement on that award pending further briefing next week.
Notes: Judge Thrash also weighed in on the “attorneys’ fees” vs. “attorney fees” debate and favors the latter. Avoid “attorneys fees” at all costs.
