I am no way up to speed on this issue and have not read the opinion but, with that said, the snippett of FL which you posted said in section 4 "may" (as opposed to a word like shall or must).
Traditionally, the government does not need to seek info about criminal activity by subpoena. The Gov useds a search warrant (as in this case) based upon a sworn oath which establishes probale cause to find evidence of criminal activity.
The "may" language does not seem to preclude the use of a search warrant.
Sorry about the typos; I was being inturrupted while typing.
"must not be disclosed"
May does not have the connotation in this sense that you are giving it.