Since no constitutionally acceptable excuse was proffered precluding the procurement of a warrant, I would hold that the grand jury subpoena was an unreasonable search of appellee’s medical records, thus violating his constitutional rights emanating from the Fourth Amendment. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the trial court’s decision to grant appellee’s motion to suppress. Because the majority holds otherwise, I dissent. BAIRD, OVERSTREET and MEYERS, JJ. join. 1 . Because the court of appeals’ arguments are based solely on the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, this opinion omits any discussion of the Texas Constitution. 2 . At the suppression hearing, the investigating officer testified that he did not go to the hospital on the 1984); (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Riedel, 539 Pa. 172, 651 A.2d
holding that section 62210 did not prevent a county attorney from obtaining a precharge subpoena for medical records because the subpoena did not require the disclosure of privileged communications by the giving of testimony holding that a subpoena for medical records may be issued only on a reasonable basis thus implying a privacy interest holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records recognizing privacy interest in medical records requested under freedom of information act holding that every citizen has a constitutional right of privacy in his or her medical records