Oh, I agree completely. I'm never comfortable when a court invents "balancing tests" that are geared so specifically to a particular circumstance as in this decision, which applies only to bookstore purchase records and only when the bookstore owner objects to the search. Presumably, if the bookstore didn't object to the search, the suspect's so-called "right to anonymously buy books" would suddenly vanish. I'm not the least bit familiar with the Colorado Constitution or that state's legal precedents, but it does appear to me that the court sort of just pulled this decision out their ass.