The remedies do not include suppression of evidence. See State v. Thompson, 222 Wis. 2d 179, 189, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct.App. 1998). Further, § 146.82(2)(b) restricts redisclosure of patient health care records and identifying information about a patient whose patient health care records are released, but that provision does not require suppression of evidence.
¶ 19 As summarized above, the circuit court agreed with Edith that the allegations in count one of the first amended complaint failed to raise a reasonable inference regarding the existence of particular “patient health care records” that might be protected under Wis. Stat. § 146.82, or of particular “treatment records” under Wis. Stat. § 51.30, which were allegedly improperly released by Edith.¶ 20 In support of this position, Edith relies on State v. Thompson, 222 Wis.2d 179, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct.App.1998), and State v. Straehler, 2008 WI App 14, ¶ 16, 307 Wis.2d 360, 745 N.W.2d 431, which established, in the words of Straehler, that Wis. Stat. § 146.82 “does not reach beyond protection of health care records.” As we pointed out in Thompson, the plain language of § 146.82 protects as confidential only “patient health care records,” and “defines a patient health care record to include ‘all records related to the health of a patient prepared by or under the supervision of a health care provider....’ Section 146.81(4), Stats. By its terms, the statute applies to only records,....” Thompson, 222 Wis.2d at 188, 585 N.W.2d 905.
¶41 Finally, the court noted that several federal and out-of-state cases supported its conclusion. Id. ¶ 71 (citing United States v. Mattox, 27 F.4th 668 (8th Cir. 2022), Commonwealth v. Welch, 167 N.E.3d 1201 (Mass. 2021), State v. Lomax, 852 N.W.2d 502 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014), State v. Cromb, 185 P.3d 1120 (Or. Ct. App. 2008), State v. Rheaume, 2005 VT 106, 179 Vt. 39, 889 A.2d 711 (Vt. 2005), State v. Thompson, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998), Wagner v. Hedrick, 383 S.E.2d 286 (W.Va. 1989), and Buchanan v. State, 432 So.2d 147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)).
¶17 Given this unambiguous statutory language, it is not surprising that this court has expressly limited the application of Wis.Stat. § 146.82 and the definition of "patient health care records" in Wis.Stat. § 146.81(4) to situations involving actual records. See Wall v. Pahl, 2016 WI.App. 71, ¶¶28-29, 371 Wis.2d 716, 886 N.W.2d 373 (concluding that the definition of "patient health care records" in § 146.81(4) has "three salient facets," the first of which is that "a patient health care record must be a 'record'" and not "mere information," and further concluding that plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim, in part because plaintiff did "not allege [that defendant] withheld any "record") (emphasis in original);State v. Thompson, 222 Wis.2d 179, 188, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1998) ("By its terms, [§ 146.82] applies to only records …."); State v. Straehler, 2008 WI.App. 14, ¶¶15, 16, 19, 307 Wis.2d 360, 745 N.W.2d 431 (2007) (concluding that "[t]he plain language of Wis.Stat. § 146.82 states that it applies to patient health care records," and noting that in Thompson we "held that [§ 146.82] does not reach beyond protection of health care records").
We need not consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that was not raised in the circuit court or addressed at a Machner hearing. See State v. Thompson, 222 Wis.2d 179, 190 n.7, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1998). ¶19 Johnson's subsequent counsel, Ryan Reid, testified that he also discussed an NGI plea with Johnson.
Accordingly, we need not consider this undeveloped ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See State v. Thompson, 222 Wis.2d 179, 190 n.7, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1998) (we need not consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that was not raised in the trial court or addressed at a Machner hearing).
That is because he had a Machner hearing before his direct appeal and failed to raise them there. See State v. Thompson, 222 Wis. 2d 179, 190 n.7, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1998); State v. Elm, 201 Wis. 2d 452, 463, 549 N.W.2d 471 (Ct. App. 1996).
Unlike a private hotel room, United States v. Jeffers, 342 US 48, 51-52, 72 S Ct 93, 96 L Ed 59 (1951), a private business office, O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 US 709, 718-19, 107 S Ct 1492, 94 L Ed 2d 714 (1987), or a private hospital room, Morris v. Commonwealth, 208 Va 331, 157 SE2d 191, 194 (1967), an emergency treatment area, or a `trauma room' located therein, is, for purposes of constitutional privacy protections, `public' and can afford no reasonable expectation of privacy. See, e.g., Matthews v. Commonwealth, 30 Va App 412, 517 SE2d 263, 264 (1999) (holding that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a treatment room within the emergency ward); accord Buchanan v. State, 432 So2d 147, 148 (Fla App 1983); People v. Torres, 144 Ill App 3d 187, 98 Ill Dec 630, 494 NE2d 752, 755 (1986); State v. Thompson, 222 Wis 2d 179, 585 NW2d 905, 911 (1998). Against this background, a patient undergoing treatment for only a brief period of time cannot reasonably expect either to restrict access to the area, or to control whether other patients, their families, or the other categories of personnel mentioned above are present in the area.
That issue is not properly before this court. SeeState v. Thompson, 222 Wis.2d 179, 190-91 n. 7, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct.App. 1998).
That's because officers are duty bound to investigate crimes, especially "reported shooting[s]." United States v. Davis , 690 F.3d 226, 234 n.13 (4th Cir. 2012) (upholding police presence in an emergency room by an officer "lawfully fulfilling his duty to investigate a reported shooting"); Sheffield v. United States , 111 A.3d 611, 620 (D.C. 2015) (noting that police were lawfully present in a hospital room "on official business to investigate a reported shooting"); State v. Rheaume , 179 Vt. 39, 889 A.2d 711, 714 (2005) (explaining that police are "emergency workers" who "as a matter of course" show up in emergency rooms); Craft v. Commonwealth , 221 Va. 258, 269 S.E.2d 797, 799–800 (1980) (pointing out that the officers went to the hospital to "investigat[e] an attempted robbery in which it had been reported that the robber had been shot"); see also State v. Thompson , 222 Wis.2d 179, 585 N.W.2d 905, 911 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998) ; People v. Torres , 144 Ill.App.3d 187, 98 Ill.Dec. 630, 494 N.E.2d 752, 755 (1986) ; State v. Cromb , 220 Or.App. 315, 185 P.3d 1120, 1126 (2008) ; Dombrovski v. State , Nos. A-7238, 4253, 2000 WL 1058953, at *3 (Alaska Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2000) ; Buchanan v. State , 432 So.2d 147, 148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983).