whole week of argument oftentimes what was being said is only take a couple of days so we're very grateful to you for the heavy lift tallman well you're more than welcome and thank you for your hospitality well uninterrupted time and then after the two minutes of the last we will that will be starting with our questions ms get is this going to help us out by giving you a two minute warning when you law enforcement to enter a doctor's office on and without a warrant or even notifying the doctor search and seizure prescribing records that's a quote determine what to look for in a criminal investigation but that is what happened here except it's poisonous sir for point i'd like to emphasize today st dr gates and had a reasonable expectation of privacy and this comprehensive record of his prescription of privacy interests that is essential to long standing expectations regarding doctor patient relationship law enforcement access to the p d entity which contains aggregated analyze prescription data that with the click of a button can be manipulated to generate trends and draw inferences from the trends about a doctor's patients and his practice  than obtaining a more limited records from individual pharmacies and any of that the government's argument would extend the regulated industry exception much farther than the documented logic permits and forth because the record is clear that law enforcement relied on the t m p to obtain the federal search warrant the patient files use the trial of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed turning to dr gates reasonable expectation of privacy important to note the issue here is not one prescription or a handful of them but a comprehensive collection point to aid them in their treatment of patients and that is what doctors gave and signed up for when he signed up for the pm he had to be very clear his voluntary participation had no bearing on whether his prescription records had been collected an prescriptions that they feel the pharmacies that the pharmacies were required to submit prescriptions that they felt and i think to that point it's important to understand why when the tedium collects comprehensibly the prescription from all pharmacies across the state that's different you know long course and maybe traditional means of investigation going to those individual pharmacies because the p t s d you know requires all pharmacies to upload that information run and pull all of dr gayton friction and it was so much information you know she said she just wanted to determine what to look for at st she had to manipulate that data she had to sort it because it wasn't so much information and she had to sort it by prescription type by amount this is something that would not be possible without this sort of collection aggregation digitization of the of the records and she was able to draw trends about dr gates prescription practice is the basis for his position that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy and implementation especially under the law the the law enforcement folks could go ahead and obtain access anyway i mean what is the basis for his reasonable expectation of privacy absolutely so i think there's a couple of points as i present bond as well as an initial matter i want to be clear that  to participate in the p d f he happened right at the end of his practice because if you didn't you did not go online until the last few weeks that he was practicing medicine he signed up for it to use it for its intended medical purpose not  transactions they weren't doing it so that their financial transactions could be monitored but the supreme court said it doesn't really matter once you show it to the bank you know you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it so how do you how do you come up with a reasonable expectation of privacy here and distinguish miller absolutely i think there are a couple of ways there are because we know that rd party dr m doesn't apply automatically it depends on the fact of each case and i think th over time and across patients there was no one patient or handful of patients or one pharmacy or handful of pharmacies that had that collective information about his private practice that was known only to him and that information our medical system relies on his  has taken an oath and he has been licensed and it's part of his job to help the patients are you making the argument that he would not comply with his oath and not do what his license required simply because he was afraid that the government might find out what he was prescribing to his patients as far as this database goes no your honor but i do think that there's there's a significant chilling effect and it is a fear i think anyone would be afraid if we knew that the government was constantly looking over our shoulders not just for public health purposes and regulatory purposes which of course dr gayton was was subject to in those that run their course in this case  entirely that would mean that the bulk of the records that were in the database at that point were compiled on the as a result of the pharmacy submitting that the information about filling the prescriptions where if he wasn't even participating in the system by supplying his own records then he's trying to assert a privacy interests that perhaps would be owned by the patients had the overall comprehensive record of his prescriptions no patient volunteered on doctor gave him the how to you know put together their prescription records plus everyone else's they may have waited it out to their own and may it please the court this is linda doing mcnamara for the united states the fact that a patient's own medical records are inherently private doesn't establish that dr king a physician had a reasonable expectation of privacy  the pharmacy does with it including reporting it to a state database or law enforcement officer and once again chose to engage in a medical practice that focused on the prescription of highly regulated controlled substances and when he registered with the da for authorization to prescribe those substances he knew that his prescribing information would be subject to close scrutiny because of the state's interest in the prevention of the abuse that controlled substances the very purpose of the prescription drug monitoring program sharing prescribe information among those involved in the process to prevent the misuse of dangerous prescription drugs the statutes governing the program when he was practicing for the statute health care regulatory boards and most importantly for our purposes law enforcement agency during active investigations of potential criminal activity regarding controlled substances a good summary of that  under these circumstances gaden had no expectation of privacy in the information that pharmacies conveyed to the state and that the state and mass in the p d m p that's very similar to the situation in the recent marijuana dispens case standing a camp that we cited in our supplemental authority letter that case involves records maintained by the colorado department of revenue marijuana enforcement division which is the state entity for regulating licensed marijuana sales information in the system could be used for the investigation and of course not of any federal or state law and the same is true here although the florida statute provided that the information of a health care practitioner containing the p d f database is and i understand i understand that but the district court here also determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to the evidence that it was obtained pursuant to the warrant and he doesn't discuss at all his brief sixty hydros tablets each patient they said they gave him had seen thirty five to forty patients each day with the appointment schedule a ten minute interval and that he typically had spent approximately one to two minutes with each patient this is all in the in the warrant affidavit completely unrelated medical history or discussed alternative treatments some said they had received prescriptions without even coming into the office one of the patients had provided testament text messages which showed that gave his office manager had met the patient outside the practice after business hours and had given the patient and his wife prescriptions in exchange for the affidavit was also based on medical examiner records showing that three of david's patients had died of overdoses of prescription  medicine discusses none of this in his brief so even if he had shown a th amendment violation he's not established any basis for this court to reject the district court's good faith exception ruling  his opinion perspective against treatment of patients between twenty million ninety two thousand and eleven he testified what i want to convey to you this afternoon is the practice that we were seeing in two thousand and nine to two thousand and eleven was in no way shape or form at hearing to the standards of care at the time and in discussing his practice in terms of the standard of care doctor i feel testified these were the standards in two thousand and nine to two said that what he was testifying to was to the standard what the standard of care had been since nine hundred and ninety eight and i should also point out that there were many important things that didn't change at all for example  the standard said before and continues to say that the board will consider prescribing controlled substances for pain to be for a legitimate medical purpose based on accepted scientific knowledge of the treatment of pain or based on sound clinical grounds all such prescribing must be based on clear documentation of really pain and compliance with applicable state or federal law that's just one thing that didn't change there were other things with respect to the maintenance of argument i know he cited parker vs window but you know to this day i'm not really sure what he's citing that for because he waived speedy trial i think five different times and i can't find where the district court ruled on that you can't help me and for the bottom line t individual patients might have and why it takes on a different character when the information is amassed and i think a good analogy can be to carpenter in fact because they're you know the court recognized that an individual doesn't have an expectation of necessarily to any individual movement out in the world any discrete journey because of course people can see it and at that point anyone could you know call the cops and say there's that person on the street but when a program allows sort of a continual comprehensive tracking of information that really takes on a different quality it took on a different quality as to our physical movements in carpenter a quality that deserves protection in part because of the really difficult for law enforcement to have gather of information in the past and the p d f he allows the same thing because once again this is not one prescription or a pharmacies set of prescriptions but it is a conglomeration of a comprehensive record of dr gate and writing decisions florida statute is not enough to satisfy the th amendment again you know the term carpenter because once again there there was a statute that permitted law enforcement to access partners records and in fact there was more protection i believe they had to show that it was relevant and material to an investigation here there's really no limiting principle other than the fact that there is an active investigation there's not even a no tether even in terms of the scope of the information that is thought so just the warrant and then just briefly i ask is it to the good faith argument and i do want to point out that you know the district court the good faith argument was that there was a sufficient condition of probable cause but in that it did rely on multiple sources from the t m t and i'm not going to go through it all in detail unless the court would like but i did just want to correct one perhaps misapprehension which was that the interviews with patients just perfect particularly found when they want to do it specifically for a criminal investigation they need to get a warrant and i would just leave briefly with this quote from ferguson versus city of charleston that drug abuse both was and is a serious problem but the gravity of the threat alone cannot be  positive of questions concerning what it means that law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose thank you