The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and I don't see the State falling for this (media, soundbite) trap by IE for a couple of reasons:
First, I doubt a subpoena to every Veterinarian for their Rx dispensary records for controlled/Schedule II meds such as BAM enforceable, and probably a violation of patients privacy. It certainly would be for human patients, and I believe an animal Rx follows the human and not the animal.
Second, BM is a good example of a party in possession of BAM who would not appear on any dispensary list from a Colorado Vet since he states he obtained his BAM sedation serum in the state of Indiana. Same could be true for his neighbors so what would this crazy exercise suggested by IE prove?
Sorry, I just find IE's entire statement here ludicrous...
Also, think how difficult it is for investigators to obtain a "Geo-Fence Warrant" where many already believe reverse search warrants are unconstitutional under the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects people from unreasonable
searches and seizures, and requires any search warrants be specific to what and to whom they apply.
Nope. The last thing the prosecution needs is to be sued by the County ranchers for constitutional violations!
I say call her bluff. Why not let IE go there-- i.e., violate the rights of the local ranchers! We know she's good at suing others for violations of her clients civil rights.
MOO