california law imposed this independent duties on both doctors and pharmacist should ensure that the prescriptions that are being issued are for legitimate medical purposes in this case the district court found based on the extraordinary dosages and frequencies and number of patients of dr huff that there was probable cause to believe that dr hough the doctor in this case had violated his duties in terms of ensuring that prescriptions were not being dispensed that were not for legitimate medical purposes but with respect to the can you just help me out with what are th honor those duties are located in california statute specifically health and safety code section eleven one fifty three a it's that statute along with eleven one fifty four way that states in essence that doctors have a duty under california law to ensure that the prescriptions that they are writing are for legitimate medical purposes and are within their medical practice and eleven one fifty three  also imposes an independent corresponding responsibility that's the phrase in the california statute on the pharmacists who actually fill these prescriptions in this case the district court found based largely get their prescriptions filled with respect to the pharmacy v p the district court found that there wasn't probable cause to search the pharmacy either for evidence relating to dr hough or for evidence relating way of knowing where other patients dr filling the sending twenty seven patients to the v p pharmacy who were being prescribed by thousand pills a month which comes out she might believe something like thirty three pills a day far in excess of the four pills that are the high end of the typical dosage with respect to actiq the website for actiq states that once the patient has been treated properly this independent corresponding responsibility under eleven one fifty three eight to ensure that these dosages which are not just once a year by one patient but by a string of patients all refer to the pharmacy by demonstrate that there was probable cause that the pharmacy that evidence of a crime would be found at the pharmacy certainly with respect to the drugs that dr huff was prescribing and the prescriptions that were being felt there but also then that might create an inference that well the reason that all of dr house payments were an overwhelming number of them are having their prescriptions filled at the beauty is because it's the most convenient place to have those prescriptions filled in fact what the war that one of the reasons is that it was simply the most convenient place to go but given that the pharmacy in the offices run completely different locations in cities all of the their adjacencies i believe if you were to look on a map i think that th doesn't even need to reach that that issue because there were certainly and i don't think it's seriously contested that evidence with respect to dr huffs crimes putting aside what really if you let me just a minute assuming for the moment that we issue the government did concede in the district court that the cloth category was overbroad and that it referred to any evidence relating to this investigation in addition to  government conceded that categories three and four were not explicitly tied to criminal violations but with respect to the other categories your honor first there was a professor a preamble to the search one agents executing the warrant to reasonably be able to determine what fell within and outside of the categories certain of the categories your honor for example the computer search categories categories ten and eleven those categories fairly read within the context of what the search warrant was all about and in particular the fact that the agents were only to see as evidence of a crime this court held in in haste for example that similarly broad computer search warrant language was appropriate in a similar kind of search warrant because the agent otherwise would not know which part of the computer to season or to look for  prescribe now your honor there's nothing on the record and there's nothing in the affidavit again the affidavit establishes a very close relationship between dr hof and this pharmacy and if one looks at the differential the purposes of argument that that the search warrant was only just searched for evidence of dr hasse criminal wrongdoing i think that evidence relating to what other doctors were doing would be relevant to law enforcement before the search that might have been having prescriptions illegally there was no probable cause to believe that any other physician was doing what dr huff was doing that's correct your honor that's correct and so simply going in and looking for evidence of some other doctor were doing what dr huff was doing would not be proper would that and that wasn't the purpose of this of the search warrant but the search warrant your honor was also intended to find evidence of if you piece criminal wrongdoing on based on the facts that  that we've already discussed namely the fact that the he was extremely closely working with dr half and the fact that he wasn't in the same building as the district court mistakenly believed in reaching a contrary decision as to the war and how does it relate to the records of dr smith or dr jones that might alter the records relating prescriptions for patients of those doctors well let's see if if if the pharmacy p is criminally filling these prescriptions by dr huff then it would be very probably have to know if they're also engaged in similar practices without respect to other prescription drugs or other doctors prohibits pharmacies from simply filling prescriptions given to them by doctors that they know were outside that the medical practice of the doctor were not for legitimate medical purposes so the find relatively broadly in that way i think that it would have been very game for the agents to be able to obtain records of the v p with respect to other prescriptions that they were filling and other doctors to see whether this eleven one fifty believe that the record establishes that there wasn't in fact any evidence that was seized specifically pursuant to calculate in which case that vision drops out and there's really no real a fact or a need for further findings by the district judge as to specifically what evidence would need to be suppressed but certainly on and the district judge would be able to determine whether in fact there were there might have been evidence  pursuant to twelve four three and four or any other category and make a determination as to whether that evidence fell within which categories the district judge didn't engage in that kind of thing craig because they didn't reach the issue of overbre with respect your honor to both your question and judge said next question on whether there might have been other doctors involved i would just note that there is i believe in the affidavit a involved there were certainly a basis for searching for evidence relating to dr huff given that this was the pharmacy where most of his patients were having their prescriptions filled the district judge simply overlooked that theory and hurley i'd like to reserve the remainder of my untrue and i'm really shocked that the government would come up here and say that that the district court made a decision based upon the dosage for doctor that's absolutely incorrect and all you have to do is read the decision of the district court in the district court found that the reason he denied the motion for dr huff is because he found based upon the affidavit that dr hough did not prescribe the prescriptions within the normal course of his medical practice he specifically found that the doctor perform no examination took no history is performed perfunctory examinations i'm reading right from his position so cursory histories before prescribing the large quantities of painkillers he also went into  i mean i don't even have to get into all the details when i mean to say that it was on the the dosage is completely untrue then for the government to say that there was as close relationship between dr huff and dr always are as some kind of criminal conspiracy the government conceded during the district court argument that there was no such relationship between the two the two barely knew each other there was no money passing hands back i mean passing back and forth between the parties there were no telephone calls no relationship at all they were completely independent and so that the only thing that the government had regarding dr o's are was the fact that he filled the prescriptions then the government comes up here and huge for pain medication and that doctors are encourage to prescribe pain medication without concern about the amount of pills that they prescribe any particular person and i'll just go through very quickly the literature is from the manufacturer and says that and i'm quoting from page eleven of our breeds that for pure o no law to limit or interfere with the authority of a health care practitioner to prescribe or administer any legally marketed device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practice within the legitimate health care practitioner patient relationship the g s a put out specifically on oxycontin i'm quoting from page sixteen of her brief provided there is a legitimate medical need a practitioner maybe issue a prescription to any patient for any quantity of any controlled substance that he or she deems medically appropriate there are no limits on the quantity of controlled substance dosage units under federal law regulation that a practitioner may prescribe  so the manufacture the f d a by the way also says there is no maximum limit the da congress and also under california law  i'm talking about per patient and the tolerance for a particular patients depends upon the patient and the individual needs of the patient some patients maybe should give four pills a day by the way the affidavit doesn't talk about any dosage so it could be ten milligrams forty milligrams eighty milligrams so the number of pills doesn't really make the difference it's the dosage that you would think would be important and that affidavit doesn't even talk about dosage but the california medical board guidelines for prescribe a controlled substance for pain quoting are intended to promote improved pain management for all forms of pain and for all patients in pain and to assure practitioners surgeons who prescribe opiates either free cute or persistent pain should not fear disciplinary or other action from california law enforcement or regulatory agencies for the mere fact of having prescribe opiates so we have the california medical board we have to da we have the manufacture we the the f d a we have congress all saying that is long as you are filling a prescription or in fact within the  medical practitioner relationship you are prescribing pills for a medical purpose these other people have to stay out of it it's between the doctor and the patients and then add some people ha great pollard's for a pills and over a period of time their pain may be such that you should take a pill every three or four hours but anyhow that's a decision for the doctor not for this court to step into and say oh this is too many pills now in this particular case they were a the congressional statement that i made the statute from the california medical boards guidelines the patients bill of rights all of this which says hey it's up to the doctor to decide how much or that was filling the prescriptions or whether pharmacies that were doing exactly the same thing now to get back to your honor's question about the over breath this report has nothing to do with dr huff really it went in there and it was a wholesale hey go in there and take whatever you want from dr o's are everything that is imaginable because we think in their opinion without any professional opinion and contrary to the literature because we think he's he's feeling prescriptions which he shouldn't be filling so go in there and you know open season on a doctor allstars business and that's what they did and now for them state there at all wealth sever basically the twelfth one which is take prosecution against this pharmacist having looked at these records and looked at that number and said oh my gosh this is filling twenty percent of all california's prescriptions or whatever it house evidence because they had that often dr house already so i don't think the pharmacist would have really added anything but they didn't so narrowly tailor it to look for dr hans material and the affidavit specifically said they thought the pharmacist was part of the criminal behavior so they were going in just to look for dr ross material and how this now did you i think you should be some deference also to the district court because he did you know he denied the motion for back to have so he carefully looked at it this wasn't just like ok i'm going to look at this affidavit and not make distinctions he made very distinct differences between the affidavits the probable cause that questions whether or not they were appropriate yes well of course but i mean he carefully considered the evidence and he did issue a sixteen page or i choose me an eighteen page decision in this case where he carefully humph they would have needed some they would have needed certainly a doctor but they wouldn't need it's obviously an affidavit has to prod have probable cause to search for criminality of the of dr o's are somebody at the pharmacy if that's the question they just can't have a fishing prescriptions that right well i'm not sure i mean i would think that there are other ways to do it certainly by subpoena but they'd have to show there was probable cause to believe something was happening well i suppose they could that they did search the pharmacy but they weren't searching they were limiting it to the to the criminality of dr who they were saying the village pharmacy was involved in this conspiracy or criminal activity and they just wholesale took all the records from the pharmacy honor with respect to the over breath issue the defendant counsel asserts that they took everything there's nothing in the record indicating that in fact what the record does indicate that they saw certain things that although of fairly whatsoever with respect to the dosages not being a basis of the district court's decision i would direct the court to g e or four sixty two page seven of the district judge's decision if you look at this  itemization of all the factors establishing probable cause you'll see that the first five or six at least all would apply equally to mr us or and v p with respect to whether the government conceded that there was no evidence of a conspiracy was going to turn a blind eye either way that supports probable cause with respect to the levy finally your honor with respect to the issue that they devote a lot of attention to and time in their brief on whether there are limits on the amount of dosages th can be prescribed most of the literature that they cite is simply outside the four corners of the affidavit it's simply inappropriate for this court to review the question is whether looking within the four corners of the affidavit whether the state court had a fair