"`Privacy rights cannot operate as an impenetrable shield to conceal, camouflage, or secrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing,'' Martz wrote."
BUT, the law must provide a court substantial PROOF that a crime has been committed.
The procecutor must, in all cases, show 'just cause' in asking for and receiving a search warrant.
Suspicion of a crime, based on 'gut feelings' is not enough.
The prosecutors haven't charged Rush with any crime - yet. Would it be permissible, during an investigation, for prosecutors to issue a search warrant to a bank of a suspected drug dealer, to follow his transactions to find out if he misbehaved?
Or would the the prosecutor's office have to allege the crime and methods and then present that to a judge to elicit a search warrant?
"The procecutor must, in all cases, show 'just cause' in asking for and receiving a search warrant."
That's true, but because of the importance courts attach to the "war on drugs," the rules do bend with records involving prescriptions of controlled substances. Rush could very well lose this privacy battle, although there might be other, due process issues, at stake (I haven't followed it in detail so don't know.)
I agree, fishing expeditions are not a legitimate reason to violate privacy rights.