United States v. Stephen J. Eide

875 F.2d 1429 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen J. EIDE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 88-3131. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 13, 1989. Decided May 30, 1989. Gardner W. Skinner, Jr., David Rupert Skinner, Cantrill, Skinner, Sullivan & King, Boise, Idaho, for defendant-appellant. Ronald D. Howen, Joanne P. Rodriguez, Asst. U.S. Attys., Boise, Idaho, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. Before WRIGHT, TANG and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. TANG, Circuit Judge: 1 Stephen Eide appeals his convictions for various drug-related crimes on the grounds that the district court erroneously denied his Motion to Suppress. On appeal, Eide argues that statements he made to hospital personnel while being treated at a VA emergency room should be suppressed because he was not given his "Miranda rights" and because the statements were involuntary. Eide makes similar arguments with respect to statements he made to the FBI eleven days later. Finally, Eide argues that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 290ee-3 requires the suppression of his urinalysis results and some statements he made at the hospital.…

Stephen Eide appeals his convictions for various drug-related crimes on the grounds that the district court erroneously denied his Motion to Suppress. On appeal, Eide argues that statements he made to hospital personnel while being treated at a VA emergency room should be suppressed because he was not given his “Miranda rights” and because the statements were involuntary. Eide makes similar arguments with respect to statements he made to the FBI eleven days later. Finally, Eide argues that 42 U.S.C. § 290ee-3 requires the suppression of his urinalysis results and some statements he made at the hospital.

I. Factual Background

A. Eide’s Initial Contact With Police And Visit To Emergency Room

The defendant, Stephen Eide, was employed as a pharmacist at the Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC) in Boise. On October 18, 1987, two Boise police officers, investigating a report that a man was injecting himself with a needle, found Eide in his car with needles, syringes, and drugs in his possession. After Eide informed the officers that he had injected himself with drugs, they radioed for an ambulance.

The police called Eide’s supervisor at the VAMC, Jan Poreba, who soon…

dissenting:

In Part V of the opinion, the majority concludes that the district court should have suppressed Eide’s admissions and medical records under 42 U.S.C. § 290ee-3. It concludes that he was a “patient” at the V.A. Medical Center. Yet, the district court found that the VAMC declined to make an emergency room report and later refused to treat Eide because he was not a veteran.

The opinion decides also that Eide “applied for” drug abuse diagnosis or treatment, although he was given only the option of going to the VAMC with Poreba, his supervisor, or being arrested.

The opinion determines that Eide received “treatment” although he received only a urinalysis and the district court found the purpose to be administrative, not medical.

Finally, the majority dismisses an exception to the statute for a crime committed on the program premises. I dissent from this part of the opinion because I believe the district court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous and the majority has misapplied the regulations.

I. Patient

I agree that Eide’s ability to suppress his VAMC statements and his urinalysis turns on 42 U.S.C. § 290ee-3(a) and the associated regulations. I agree also…