CASE SUMMARY $22\mathrm{.}5$ State v$.$ Yenzer, $195$ P$\mathrm{.}3$d $271($Kan$.$ App. $2008)$

EXCLUSIONARY RULE

The police received information that Yenzer, a fugitive, would be at a local dentist's office the next day. The police arrived at the dentist's

office in hopes of capturing Yenzer, but she was not there. The receptionist informed them that Yenzer's appointment had been

rescheduled for the next week. The police requested the exact date and time, and the dentist's receptionist complied. The police returned to

the office at the rescheduled appointment time and arrested Yenzer when she arrived. Subsequent to her arrest, the police discovered

evidence of additional crimes committed by Yenzer and charged her with various felonies. The Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act $($HIPAA$)$ of $1996$ prohibits dental offices from disclosing any information $($including appointment times$)$ about patients

to third parties without the patient's permission. At trial, Yenzer argued that all evidence discovered after the dentist$-$office arrest should be

excluded because the arrest was made as a result of a HIPAA violation.

CASE QUESTIONS

Is Yenzer's dental appointment time protected by the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?

Did the police go too far in this case by requesting confidential information from the dentist's receptionist? Isn't the exclusionary rule

intended to deter unlawful conduct by authorities?