Almost an intelligent statement if you realized what you said. A crime may have been committed. That statement is true of everyone. If one then assumes a crime has been committed than any document may have relevance to the crime. However the legal system in the US works on the basis of a crime having been committed or a reasonable belief that one has been committed. An investigation is conducted to determine who, what, why, where and when related to the crime.
In this case we don't have a crime, we don't even have the basis for a reasonable belief that one has been committed. We have an investigator who is fishing for evidence that a crime has been committed. The legal equivelant of "the cart before the horse".
In a closed hearing before a judge he presented the prescription list without presenting all of the information he had to accompany it. This is an ethical breach for which he may pay in the future. He received a search warrant to seize doctors records on the basis that they were at risk. Were the doctors records really at risk? He chose this approach because the ethical approach of obtaining a subpoena would not have worked. The subject of the subpoena and the potential defendant would have had an opportunity to respond and would have prevailed on any number of reasons. The foremost would have been simply that the medication levels when taken on a daily basis are not high enough to be medically excessive, negating any basis for criminal intent. The quest for doctor records would have ended there and the prosecutor would not have had the press exposure he desires.
Now, go away and bother someone else. Your myopic views are neither enlightening nor entertaining. Even should you provide a further innocuous response, don't expect me to reply. I've wasted far too much time on you already and you really don't show any indication that you are capable of being educated, either by bothering to read available material or actually thinking about the information at hand.
Have a nice day.