[colorado tanker]

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.

[RS]

"You really ought to read the articles before you claim to be an expert on the facts."

So just where did the Judge say that there was any sort of statutory violation ?

He did NOT say that the search warrent ruling was against statute, and did NOT rule that medical records can only be obtained by supeona.

Black discussed the statute, like he could discuss just about anything - If he and you want to call it a statutory violation, fine, but noone except him ever ruled it that.

It's like Black coming out with these extortion allegations - He got it in the record that he said it, but there is no information that it has any bearing on reality.

It appears the Judge had given Black a lot of leeway to say just about anything he wants - and still ruled against him...