So much was made of the public dribble of names off the list of 204 who tested positive in Major League Baseball’s 2003 drug testing matter, but so little is being said about the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding that list (U.S. v Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc).
That testing was undertaken, in the words of the court, “… solely to determine whether more than five percent of players tested positive, in which case there would be additional testing in future seasons.”
The court said, “The players were assured that the results would remain anonymous and confidential.…” That of course did not happen for those whose names have leaked out, including David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez.
The list was seized as part of a search by federal agents pursuant to a warrant seeking information on 10 players believed involved in the BALCO Lab investigation. The government believed BALCO had supplied steroids to MLB players.
The court found that when the search was executed, “the government seized and promptly reviewed the drug testing records for hundreds of players in Major League Baseball (and a great many other people).”
That search and seizure violated the 4th Amendment, said the court. “Thus, if the government is allowed to seize information pertaining to ten names, the search protocol must be designed to discover data pertaining to those names only, not to others, and not those pertaining to other illegality.”
As part of the decision, the court said the government must return or destroy such illegally seized records.
That means, except for information on the 10 mentioned in the warrant, the names and any information on the rest on the list seized must be destroyed.
The government can appeal the case to the Supreme Court and has until the end of October to decide if it will do so. Until then, the list remains in the hands of the government, and any others who may have somehow acquired it.
This decision extends far beyond the MLB issue. The court had to deal with search and seizure of material that is electronically stored, such as in computer files.
The court said, “This pressing need of law enforcement for broad authorization to examine electronic records, so persuasively demonstrated in the introduction to the original warrant in this case, creates a serious risk that every warrant for electronic information will become, in effect, a general warrant, rendering the Fourth Amendment irrelevant.”
The court set forth a step-by-step procedure on how warrants seeking electronic data should be issued and executed.
Because the case is vitally important in the development of integrating 4th Amendment protections in these electronic data times, it is unlikely the Supreme Court would vote to hear the case even if the government appealed.
The reason is the Court would not want to engage in rendering an opinion that would be the law of the land at a time when the concept of the 4th Amendment in this era of electronic data is just now being legally explored.
Meanwhile, the list remains in existence and the potential for more names to leak out continues.