Douglas v. Dobbs, 419 F.3d 1097, 1102 (10th Cir. 2005).
2.
Id., at 1103.
3.
Id., at 1099.
4.
Id., at 1100.
5.
Id.
6.
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
7.
Douglas, 419 F.3d at 1099.
8.
Id., at 1100.
9.
Id., See generally 95 A.L.R. Fed. 82 § 2 (explaining the availability of qualified immunity defense to private parties in § 1983 action).
10.
Douglas, 419 F.3d at 1100.
11.
Id., at 1103.
12.
Id., at 1100.
13.
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987).
14.
Douglas, 419 F.3d at 1101.
15.
Id., at 1101 (citing Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 160 L. Ed. 2d 583, 125 S. Ct. 596, 599–600 (2004)).
16.
Id. at 1101 (citing Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599–600 (1977)).
17.
Id. at 1101–02 (citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152–53 (1973)); see also Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 713 (1976).
18.
Douglas, 419 F.3d at 1102.
19.
Id.
20.
Id.
21.
Id., at 1103.
22.
Id.
23.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.
24.
Douglas, 419 F.3d at 1104.
25.
Compare United States v. Nechy, 827 F.2d 1161, 1166 (7th Cir. 1987) (upholding search of pharmacy not conducted pursuant to criminal warrant); United States v. Jamieson – McKames Pharm., 651 F.2d 532, 541–42 (8th Cir. 1981) (upholding warrantless search of pharmaceutical business); United States ex rel. Terraciano v. Montanye, 493 F.2d 682 (2d Cir. 1974) (upholding warrantless search of pharmacy for prescription drug records); Murphy v. State, 115 Wn. App. 297, 62 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003) (upholding warrantless search of customer's drug records); State v. Russo, 259 Conn. 436, 790 A.2d 1132 (Conn. 2002) (same); State v. Welch, 160 Vt. 70, 624 A.2d 1105 (Vt. 1992) (same), with Murphy v. Townsend, 187 F.3d 648, 1999 WL 439468 (9th Cir. 1999) (unpublished opinion) (affirming denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment because factual dispute existed as to whether defendants conducted warrantless search of customer's pharmacy records), and United States v. Enserro, 401 F. Supp. 460 (W.D.N.Y. 1975) (finding warrantless search of pharmacy illegal).
26.
California HealthCare Foundation, Medical Privacy and Confidentiality Survey: Summary and Overview (1999), at <http://www.chcf.org/documents/ihealth/survey.pdf> (last visited January 5, 2006).
27.
See Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996); 45 C.F.R. § 160 and 164 (2003) (HIPAA Privacy Rule).
SilversA. and SteinM. A., “Human Rights and Genetic Discrimination: Protecting Genomics' Promise for Public Health,”Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics, 31 (2003): 377–389, at 377.
