After a collision, Austin Bradley was charged with serious injury by vehicle and impaired driving. The trial court barred a forensic toxicologist from explaining the general effects of drugs but refused to suppress hospital records obtained by warrant. In the State’s appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the toxicologist’s training and experience qualified her to address general pharmacological effects; the trial court had demanded more expertise than that limited testimony required. In Bradley’s companion appeal, it upheld the records warrant because it was confined to his treatment around the crash rather than authorizing a general search of his medical history. The court reversed the expert-testimony ruling and affirmed the denial of suppression. It did not decide whether Bradley was impaired or guilty of the charged offenses.