The facts of this case are more fully set out in King v. State , 276 Ga. 126 577 SE2d 764 2003, in which the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Michael David King’s motion to suppress. The Court concluded that King’s right to privacy was not violated when the State obtained his private medical records by means of a search warrant. Id. at 126. On remand from the Supreme Court, following a bench trial, the trial court found King guilty of Count I of the accusation against him, which charged him with being in actual physical control of a moving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe for him to drive. OCGA § 40-6-391 a 1.1 King appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. King contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his medical records obtained by means of the search warrant. He claims that the supporting affidavit consisted of nothing more than a “a second-hand conclusion that probable cause existed” and “contained no facts whatsoever supporting a finding of probable cause.” We find no merit in this contention. In King , supra, the Georgia Supreme Court found: Since the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed, the State complied with all the established procedures in obtaining the search warrant , and King was not entitled to notice or a hearing on the State’s request, the trial court correctly denied King’s motion to suppress the results of the hospital’s blood test. Emphasis supplied. King , supra, 276 Ga. at 129.
2. King contends that the trial court erred in admitting the results of his hospital blood and urine tests because the State failed to establish that the procedures used to test his blood and urine met the standard for admissibility set out in Harper v. State , 249 Ga. 519 282 SE2d 389 1982.
