world_pictures / Shutterstock.com
Tiger Woods has spent the last two decades trying to keep his personal life out of the headlines. That’s getting harder now.
Florida prosecutors are going after the 15-time major champion’s prescription drug records from a local pharmacy, ESPN‘s Marty Schlabach reported. Woods was arrested on DUI charges late last month after another vehicle incident – though he wasn’t drinking at the time and refused a blood test.
At least one lawyer thinks the charges might not stick in court. Woods has already checked himself into an overseas treatment program.
The Legal Fight Over Privacy
Woods’ attorneys are pushing back hard against prosecutors’ attempts to get those records.
His lawyer, Douglas Duncan, filed a response arguing that Woods has a constitutional right to privacy when it comes to his prescriptions. Duncan’s also asking for a hearing to determine whether the state should even be allowed to access the pharmacy records.
“This right is admittedly not absolute should the State show the relevance of the records to its criminal investigation and thus warrant intrusion into Mr. Woods’ privacy,” Duncan wrote.
The prosecution wants specific details – how many times Woods filled prescriptions between Jan. 1 and March 27, the number of pills prescribed, dosage amounts, and any instructions that came with them. That includes warnings about driving while taking the medications.
Duncan immediately objected. He’s requesting a hearing to debate whether the prescription records are actually “relevant to a criminal investigation.”
Part of this seems aimed at keeping the information away from public view.
If the state does get the subpoena approved, Duncan wants a protective order in place. That would limit who can see Woods’ records – only the state, its law enforcement officers, any state experts, and the defense team.
“The records shall not be disclosed to any third parties, including Order prohibiting dissemination of the records by the State in response to any public records request,” he wrote. Duncan added that if the state needs to publicly disclose the records or any portion of them, there must be a hearing first to determine whether it’s necessary.
