While a federal judge is trying to jail a gutsy reporter of the New York Times for failing to disclose evidence she collected for a story she never wrote, a partisan prosecutor in Florida is pressing a case against another journalist with gumption, Rush Limbaugh, in a way that threatens to undermine the rights of millions in Florida. The issues are not the same, and we’ve already written about Judith Miller of the Times. But in a 2-1 decision issued earlier this year, Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that state investigators did not violate Mr. Limbaugh’s privacy rights when they raided his doctors’ offices and seized his medical records.

“Rush Limbaugh’s celebrity status is secondary to the fundamental privacy issues that arise in this case,” said the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Randall Marshall. “What is at stake here is the medical privacy of millions of people in Florida and the need to protect people against unnecessary government intrusion into their medical records.” In February, the ACLU of Florida filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that law enforcement officers violated state law when they used a search warrant to obtain Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records rather than a subpoena.

Florida law provides that “Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without consent of the person to whom they pertain,” except when a subpoena is issued in civil or criminal cases. Law enforcement officers must notify the person whose records they seek to obtain and give him the opportunity to object before the records are seized. The state would have to demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in obtaining the records, that the records sought are relevant to its investigation, and that there are no less intrusive means available to obtain the information needed for the investigation.

Under Florida law, a judge has the authority to release only the information that is necessary for the investigation and to control the use or dissemination of those records. But none of these safe guards were afforded to Mr. Limbaugh because the state attorney sidestepped the subpoena procedure. The state now has access to all of Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records, not only those related to the state’s investigation. There is no judicial supervision over how long the records are to be kept or how it may be disclosed to third parties. Already, officials in the State Attorney’s Office have been leaking details of its investigation to ABC News, USA Today, and the National Enquirer.

As the ACLU wrote in its brief, “Even where there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is contained in some portion of those records, it may well be the other information found in those records which provides the state the ammunition it needs to coerce an individual into capitulating to law enforcement.”

Mr. Limbaugh has been accused of “doctor shopping” in order to obtain narcotic drugs, a charge which Mr. Limbaugh denies. We take no position on the merits of these charges, but we find it hard to disagree with a statement Mr. Limbaugh’s attorney issued. “We strongly disagree with the decision of the Court majority because it does not recognize a patient’s right to medical privacy that the Congress, the Florida Legislature and the citizens of Florida have granted to patients such as Mr. Limbaugh, who has not even been charged with anything,” he said. “Mr. Limbaugh should not have to give up his right to privacy to prove his innocence.”

Whether there ought to be privacy for medical records is a matter on which the Florida legislature has spoken. The Florida court has effectively undone the protections for medical privacy. Whether or not you’ve been charged with a crime, if you live in Florida, prosecutors can seize your medical records – all of them – and make them public without giving you the opportunity to object. Whatever one thinks of Mr. Limbaugh, Floridians have reason to oppose his treatment. And it’ll be illuminating to see what the usual liberal guardians of various rights will have say about it in a case where the journalist involved is a genius of the right wing.