Is there any case where a doctor was found guilty of conspiracy to commit grand theft?

Respondent cites People v. Schmitt, 155 Cal.App.2d 87, 317 P.2d 673, wherein a chiropractor and another person were convicted of conspiracy to commit grand theft. That case is distinguishable from the present case. When the chiropractor was arrested in his office, the officers had a warrant for his arrest on a misdemeanor charge of false advertising, but they did not have a search warrant. In that case there was a general ransacking of defendant's office, but the question was whether the evidence obtained illegally was used against defendant. It was said therein (155 Cal.App.2d at page 103, 317 P.2d at page 684) that the evidence used was obtained in a search that was permissible under the charge for which defendant was arrested. It was also said therein (155 Cal.App.2d at page 102, 317 P.2d at page 684): The 'medical records which were received in evidence were connected with the commission of the crime for which he was arrested.'

Respondent also cites United States v. Lindenfeld, 2 Cir., 142 F.2d 829, where there was a seizure of patient record cards which were in possession of a physician. Defendant therein was convicted of unlawfully issuing prescriptions of morphine to narcotic addicts. That case is distinguishable from the present case. The defendant therein was required to keep records of the drugs distributed by him. The federal agents seized all of his cards containing the names of patients for whom he had prescribed drugs. It was held therein that the seizure was legal. In that case, the records which were seized were records which the federal agents were authorized by law to examine. In the present case, the records were not public records but were private and confidential records of the physician.

In the present case the convictions were based upon evidence that was obtained by illegal search and seizure.

In view of the above conclusion, it is not necessary to discuss other contentions on appeal.

The judgment (as to both counts) and the order denying the motion for a new trial are reversed.

VALLEE, J., concurs.

SHINN, P. J., did not participate.

* Opinion vacated 346 P.2d 393.