With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records
C: recognizing privacy interest in medical records requested under freedom of information act
D: holding that a subpoena for medical records may be issued only on a reasonable basis thus implying a privacy interest
D.