Last night, Sheriff Ivey was a panelist on the Brevard County Gun Rights Preservation Forum hosted by the Florida Republican Liberty Caucus and the Brevard County Trump Club.
During the forum, moderator Bill Mick asked Ivey,
“Is the problem not that we’re attacking the implement and not the potential dangerous person?”
Ivey Responded:
“The problem is not anything to do with the 2nd Amendment or any of that. the problem is with the mental health system in this country is broken, throw the baby out with the bath water. If you want to reform something, reform HIPAA.
So that I can now see what a doctor has said about this person. That person can be Baker Acted and show up 3 days later, and I have no way of knowing what the doctor has even said about them.
You start talking about reforming HIPAA and people cringe. The reality is our mental health system is broken. We’ve got to a point where it was more important to save money than to save lives. “
According the the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HIPAA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. It is a federal law that sets a national standard to protect medical records and other personal health information.
The rule defines “protected health information” as health information that:
- Identifies an individual and
- Is maintained or exchanged electronically or in hard copy.
If the information has any components that could be used to identify a
person, it would be protected. The protection would stay with the information as long as the information is in the hands of a covered entity or a business associate. The protections apply to individually identifiable information in any form, electronic or non-electronic. The paper progeny of electronic information is covered (i.e. the information would not lose its protections simply because it is printed out of a computer), and oral communications are also covered.
More information can be found here. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/m2e411a1.htm
The “Baker Act” Ivey refers to in his response is The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (Florida Statute 394.451-394.47891 [2009 rev.])
The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment), which can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person:
- possibly has a mental illness.
- is in danger of becoming a harm to self, harm to others, or is self neglectful.
Examinations may last up to 72 hours (3 days) after a person is deemed medically stable and occurs locally here in Brevard at Circles of Care.
Since 2015, Sheriff Ivey has sat on the Board of Directors for Circles of Care and is charged with approval of the annual budget, and oversight of their financial records and audits, among other duties.
It is not clear what Ivey would like to see reformed in the Patient Privacy Laws, other than he would like to have access to the records.
It is also not clear what role law enforcement has in evaluating patient medical records, their qualifications to do so, nor their right to do so. This forum was specifically about the 2nd Amendment, however there are many Amendment’s in the Constitution (which Ivey bragged about having tattooed on his arm) that cover the Right to Privacy.
- The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
- The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
- The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
- The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
- The Ninth Amendment says that the “enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.” This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As stated earlier, it is unclear what Ivey’s intentions are in gaining access to this protected information in regards to the 2nd Amendment. What has been stated before in this scenario is to remove guns from the possession of those thought to have mental illnesses or pose a threat. President Trump himself drew criticism for this position when he said to “take the guns first and have due process later.” That position would be contrary to the positions Ivey stated previously in the forum.
What is clear is that one cannot protect an Amendment of the Constitution of the United States by violating the others.
If you would like to see the full video of the event, it can be accessed here.
Sounds to me like he’s trying to increase circles of care bottom line. Is it not a conflict of interest that he sits on the board of directors and at the same time is in charge of the agency that can involuntarily send people there on the tax payers dime?
I’m for the 2nd amendment but…..
Fuck outta here gun grabber.
How can a cop be qualified to interpret medical records? This is asinine. Ivey loves the sound of his voice too much and his mouth gets him in trouble. Big misstep here.
I agree with Ivey 100%. If there’s a red flag then they need to have their guns taken away.
I keep warning people about this guy … blind followers call me names but I know a snake oil salesman when I see one.
Hollywood Ivey never met a camera he didn’t like … oh hang on another crack head is breaking into my shed .
Thanks for uploading the video. I wouldn’t have believed this unless I had heard him say it himself.
It amuses me that the author of this article takes the time and effort to specifically describe five of the Bill of Rights Amendments – one of which is totally irrelevant to the topic and has had so much as a single case before SCOTUS – but entirely skips over the Amendment that was the focus of the Monday evening forum.
As for HIPAA, it seems to me Sherrif Ivey was referencing a situation where a court has already ordered a person to undergo a mental health evaluation – which implies evidence was presented to the court which justified the court’s order for an examination – but the sheriff is prohibited from reviewing the result(s) of the examination. This is NOT a case of Sheriff Ivey wanting blanket authority to see anyone and/or everyone’s mental health records. Sheriff Ivey is only asking for access to the mental health examination records for people who were already ordered to undergo an examination by a court of law.
The sheriff’s request is narrowly defined and specific only to those who a court has already judged to be at risk for committing a deadly or serious harm to themselves or others.
Has *not* had so much as a single case brought before SCOTUS.
I totally agree with you, He CAN have access to that part of the record BUT only with a court order. Since the court ordered the person to undergo a mental health evaluation, the same court CAN make that evaluation available to Sheriff Ivey. He has to petition the court, paperwork, paperwork, paperwork….
Get a search warrant!
HIPPA is not about saving money. It’s about respecting a person’s privacy. It’s about people being denied work opportunities because someone read their medical history and made a judgement. My father served our country for 22 years as a Naval Aviator. He served 3 tours in Vietnam and retired as a highly decorated Commander, a CO of a highly respected squadron. And he had bipolar disorder. While I agree we need to revisit the way we treat mental health in our country, it’s not be allowing the SHERIFF of all people to have access to our most private medical records. Seriously-you think the Democrats want to run your lives? But this republican sheriff thinks it’s okay to access my medical records? Who’s big government now?
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun”
~ Wayne Ivey
If that is truly the case, he doesn’t need access to medical records.
Wayne Ivey is a fake ass wanna be celebrity who says the same thing on repeat on any camera he can find. Gotta be the fattest sheriff in the state. Puke.
Sheriff Ivey,
I was at the 2nd amendment conference last week and didn’t get the chance to ask further into this when you spoke of it.
Sheriff Ivey, this would be a complete failure of government resources as well as tyrannically and systematically stripping Citizens of their rights.
Sheriff, what would you do to protect the Citizen’s privacy and protect them from malicious doctors who have person bias against the 2nd amendment, as well as differing opinions of same case studies of a sample patient were one doctor says the sample patient is Not a risk and another doctor who says the same patient is a risk?
This opens Pandora’s box for other issues just as the red flag laws have in our state as stated at the conference and in other states.
For having the constitution tattooed on your arm Sheriff, this is a serious violation of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.
You are the most valuable and biggest asset this county has against the anti-2a movement, please do not strip us of our rights Sheriff Ivey. We are not Sacramento County, CA.
God damn he’s fucking stupid.