Replies

"There is also a statutory procedure for obtaining medical records that the prosecutor deliberately violated so that he could seize the records before giving notice to Rush or have a hearing, both of which are required."

Amazing... you found this statutory procedure, yet two judges and Rushs lawyer haven't found it.

If you are refering to "least intrusive means", Black brought this before the Judge and he ruled that the warrent was valid and the records could be opened.

So it WAS considered and it was found to not apply.

What statutory violation are you refering to ?

Read the transcript. Black did discuss the statute. The court and the prosecutor also considered it. The court ruled "no harm no foul" because Black was given a hearing after the fact and the court basically said the difference between a search warrant and a subpoena was immaterial. The prosecutor argued that nothing would be served by giving the records back and going through the statutory process to get them by the required hearing and subpoena procedure.Of course, in the area of search and seizure law form often controls over substance. And there is the issue that if the prosecutor can get away with ignoring the statute with no consequences, will anybody follow the statutute in the future.

This is the main issue that is now on appeal. You really ought to read the articles before you claim to be an expert on the facts.