The Idaho Supreme Court reversed a district court ruling that would have prevented prosecutors from using prescription monitoring program records and medical information in a DUI case against Lewis Vanalen Borek.
The high court's decision, issued Feb. 4, 2026, overturns District Judge Derrick J. O'Neill's order granting Borek's motion in limine that excluded various medical records from evidence. The case centers on the admissibility of prescription drug information in impaired driving prosecutions and the scope of psychotherapist-patient privilege protections.
Borek was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. Prior to trial, his defense team filed a motion to prevent the state from introducing records obtained from multiple sources, including the Idaho Prescription Monitoring Program, Ada County Jail, and Star Pharmacy. The records contained information about prescription drug orders for mental health medications that medical providers issued to Borek, as well as dates and locations where he filled the prescriptions.
Borek's attorneys argued the records were inadmissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 503(b)(2), which establishes psychotherapist-patient privilege protections. The defense contended that prescription information constituted confidential communications protected by the privilege.
The district court agreed with Borek's position and granted the motion in limine, concluding that the records constituted confidential communications and were therefore privileged under Rule 503. The trial court also determined that statements Borek made to arresting officers at the scene, indicating he was taking anti-depressant medication, did not waive the privilege because those statements also constituted confidential communications under the rule.
The state, represented by Idaho Attorney General Raúl R. Labrador's office, disagreed with the district court's interpretation and filed a motion for permissive appeal, which the Idaho Supreme Court granted. Deputy Attorney General Kale D. Gans argued the case for the state, while State Appellate Public Defender Erik R. Lehtinen's office represented Borek, with attorney Andrea W. Reynolds handling oral arguments.
Justice Zahn authored the Supreme Court's opinion reversing the district court's decision. The ruling appears to narrow the scope of psychotherapist-patient privilege as it applies to prescription monitoring program data and related medical records in criminal cases.
The decision has significant implications for DUI prosecutions across Idaho, where prescription drug impairment cases are increasingly common. Prosecutors often rely on prescription monitoring program data to establish patterns of drug use and to corroborate evidence of impairment. The records can show when defendants obtained controlled substances, what medications they were prescribed, and whether they were taking multiple substances that could affect their ability to drive safely.
Prescription monitoring programs track controlled substance prescriptions dispensed by pharmacies and are designed to prevent prescription drug abuse and doctor shopping. Idaho's program requires pharmacies to report dispensing information for controlled substances within 24 hours.
The case highlights the tension between medical privacy protections and law enforcement's need for evidence in impaired driving cases. As prescription drug abuse has increased nationwide, prosecutors have increasingly sought to use prescription monitoring data in DUI cases involving controlled substances.
Defense attorneys have argued that such records should be protected under various privacy privileges, including psychotherapist-patient privilege, physician-patient privilege, and general medical privacy protections. However, prosecutors contend that prescription dispensing records do not constitute confidential communications and should be available as evidence when relevant to criminal charges.
The Idaho Supreme Court's reversal suggests the state's highest court views prescription monitoring program records as falling outside the scope of psychotherapist-patient privilege protections, at least in the context of DUI prosecutions. The decision may encourage prosecutors to more aggressively seek prescription data in similar cases.
The ruling also addresses the question of privilege waiver when defendants make statements about their medication use to law enforcement officers. The district court had found that Borek's statements to arresting officers about taking anti-depressant medication did not waive privilege protections, but the Supreme Court's reversal may indicate a different view on this issue.
The case returns to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. Borek's DUI trial can now proceed with the prescription monitoring program records and related medical information potentially admissible as evidence.
The decision may prompt legislative review of Idaho's evidence rules and privilege protections as they apply to prescription monitoring data. Privacy advocates may push for stronger statutory protections for medical information, while prosecutors may seek clearer guidance on when such records can be used in criminal cases.
Similar issues are pending in courts across the country as states grapple with balancing medical privacy rights against law enforcement needs in prescription drug-related criminal cases.