Pyle v. Woods
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
874 F.3d 1257 (2017)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
The Utah Controlled Substance Database was created in 1995 to record data regarding every controlled-substance prescription dispensed in Utah to persons outside inpatient healthcare facilities. The Utah Controlled Substance Database Act, which authorized the database’s creation, also authorized local law enforcement to access the database without a warrant. In 2013, detective James Woods (defendant) was tasked with identifying the person responsible for the theft of various medications, including opioids, from ambulances owned by Utah’s United Fire Authority (UFA). When Woods received a list of the 480 UFA employees with ambulance access, he searched the database for each employes’s prescription records in an attempt to determine whether any employees had opioid dependencies. Based on the warrantless database search, Woods came to suspect UFA employees Ryan Pyle and Marlon Jones (plaintiffs), although neither employee was ultimately prosecuted for the thefts. Pyle and Jones sued Woods, alleging that his warrantless database activity violated their Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches. Woods asserted qualified immunity as a defense, arguing that it shielded from any civil liability for his conduct. The district court agreed and dismissed the claims against Woods. Pyle and Jones appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Murphy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 906,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 996 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

