dissenting.
Based on information lawfully received from various pharmacies, federal agents determined that Dr. Hayes illegally prescribed Schedule II drugs to 58 patients. Instead of limiting the search to these suspected patients and substances, the three search warrants issued in this case broadly authorized the agents to search each of over 10,000 patient files, located in three medical offices, for information relating to any controlled substance. Because the actions of the federal authorities in this case *1357demonstrate a cavalier disregard for the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement,1 I am unable to countenance the majority opinion’s approval of the search in this case.2
The Fourth Amendment provides that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The touchstone of the particularity requirement is whether the warrant ensures that “[a]s to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.” Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 48 S.Ct. 74, 76, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927); Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 2748, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976); see United States v. Gomez-Soto, 723 F.2d 649, 653 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 977, 104 S.Ct. 2360 80 L.Ed.2d 831 (1984). The majority, while acknowledging this fundamental principle, ignores its application in this case. A close review of the facts demonstrates the flagrant overbreadth of the warrant used by the agents to search Dr. Hayes’s three medical offices.
The most obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement is found in the two search warrants covering more than 9,000 patient files at the Farm-ersville and Portersville medical offices. These warrants authorized the search of “patient logs, appointment books and other records ... constituting evidence of illegal distribution of controlled substances.” This provision is not reasonably specific because the officers executing the warrant must determine during the search whether a particular item “constitutes evidence” of illegal distribution.3 In fact, this is exactly the type of warrant provision that this court has repeatedly struck down.4 The majority opinion winks at this glaring deficiency by merely quoting, without explaining, these provisions in its footnote.
*1358Nor do the warrant provisions addressed in the text of the majority opinion pass constitutional muster. The warrants at issue in this case authorize the search of every patient file in all three of Dr. Hayes’s offices. The broad language of the warrants encompasses about 8,000 files in the Porterville office, 1,500 files in the Farmersville office, and 1,000 files in the Ivanhoe office. The majority opinion concludes that these vast numbers are really insignificant, noting that the Court in An-dresen acknowledged that in searches of voluminous records, “some innocuous documents will be examined, at least cursorily, in order to determine whether they are, in fact, among those papers authorized to be seized.” 427 U.S. at 482 n. 11, 96 S.Ct. at 2749 n. 11. The Court in Andresen went on to state, however, that in such searches “responsible officials, including judicial officials, must take care to assure that they are conducted in a manner that minimizes unwarranted intrusions upon privacy.” Id. In this case, an opportunity to minimize unwarranted intrusions readily presented itself to the agents and to the issuing Magistrate — the search could have been, but was not, restricted to the files pertaining to the particular patients or drugs referred to in the affidavits. I believe that “responsible” officials would have, at a minimum, limited the search warrant to Schedule II drugs, rather than to any controlled substance, and the 58 suspect profiles, rather than to the 10,000 patient files.
Moreover, the failure to describe with particularity the items to be seized cannot be squared with this court’s repeated pronouncements that a general description in a warrant is permissible only if “a more precise description is not possible.” Gomez-Soto, 728 F.2d at 654; United States v. Cardwell, 680 F.2d 75, 78 (9th Cir.1982); see also VonderAhe, 508 F.2d at 370; accord United States v. Bright, 630 F.2d 804, 812 (5th Cir.1980). Although the government acknowledges that its investigation of Dr. Hayes focused on excessive prescription of Schedule II drugs, the warrant authorized a search of documents and patient files pertaining to every controlled substance, from Percodan to such commonly prescribed medications as Tylenol with codeine and Valium. Here, as in Cardwell, the results of the governments pre-search investigation “were not used to refine the scope of the warrant.” See Cardwell, 680 F.2d at 78.5
The failure to limit the warrants so as to minimize intrusions upon patient’s privacy interests is particularly troublesome because the documents to be searched were primarily medical records. Information contained in patient files is extremely personal and potentially embarrassing to innocent third parties. Unlike the cases cited by the majority, in which the searches generally involved a narrow class of business transactions,6 the search in this case en*1359compassed personal medical history contained in thousands of patient files. The Magistrate’s failure to narrow the scope of the search resulted in massive intrusions on personal privacy interests. Cf. United States v. Abrams, 615 F.2d 541 (1st Cir.1980) (invalidating broad search of medical records); VonderAhe, 508 F.2d 364 (same).
Finally, the testimony of the executing officers establishes that the warrants failed to provide “reasonable guidelines” for the search of the thousands of medical files in this case. While the government’s investigation focused on excessive prescription of Schedule II drugs, the breadth of the warrant and the number of medical files in the offices gave the searching officers no alternative but to exercise broad discretion in choosing which files to seize. According to an agent searching the 8,000 files in the Porterville office, anything within the confines of the offices was “fair game,” and whether to search a particular file was “up to the discretion of the officer.” In fact, the agent stated: “[pjersonally, I was specifically looking for the substances Dialudid and Percodan.” He further admitted that “it was basically assumed that each officer was to use his common sense and judgment as to which file should be seized.” 7 In fact, the agents soon called off their attempts to search all the medical records, and focused instead on certain patient files, and on a triplicate prescription log maintained by Dr. Hayes for Schedule II prescriptions. Thus, the overbreadth of the warrants in this case not only permitted discretionary rummaging and seizure, but in fact necessitated it.
The number of files searched, the general object of the search, and the nature of the information contained in those files all demonstrate that the “guidelines” contained in the warrants were simply not reasonable. There is no valid excuse for the omission because the opportunity to provide reasonable guidelines was readily available to the government and the issuing Magistrate. Because reasonably specific guidelines were not provided, the warrants, in my view, do not even come close to satisfying the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. For the reasons stated above, I dissent.
. At oral argument, the United States attorney assigned to this case repeatedly acknowledged that the failure to limit the search warrants to records involving Schedule II drugs or specific patients was a "mistake” on the part of the agents who drafted the warrants. Government counsel conceded that “in hindsight" the warrants should have been limited to the suspect patient files referred to in the affidavits.
This error was apparently due to counsel’s failure adequately to assist the agents in drafting the warrants. Counsel noted that the agents typed up the warrants and affidavits and that he failed to review them before they were presented to the magistrate because “for some reason I was not available.” He further acknowledged that his failure to review the warrants was a departure from "customary practice."
Thus, although the attorney asserted that he assisted in preparing the affidavits and warrants, it appears that he did not give the agents meaningful guidance on how the documents should be worded. In fact, counsel candidly admitted that, "I was quite suprised that [the warrant] ended up reading the way it did.”
. I agree with the majority opinion that the affidavits, which were neither served with nor attached to the search warrants, may not be relied upon to provide the requisite specificity. It is noteworthy that the district court believed that the affidavits were essential to its decision to uphold the warrants while the majority finds that the warrants are sufficiently particular even without the affidavits.
. Such a determination is especially problematic in this case because of the "medical exception" to the prohibition on prescription of controlled substances. A file indicating that Dr. Hayes prescribed a controlled substance would not necessarily establish a violation of the statute. The executing officers would have to determine if the prescription was "excessive” or for a "non-medical” purpose. In fact, the agents testified that they used their own judgment in determining what to seize from Dr. Hayes's offices.
. See, e.g., Gomez-Soto, 723 F.2d at 653-54 (invalidating warrant provision authorizing search of papers "evidencing failures to file currency transaction reports____”); United States v. Cardwell, 680 F.2d 75, 76 (9th Cir.1982) (search of corporate records "which are the fruits and instrumentalities, of violations of [federal tax law].”); VonderAhe v. Howland, 508 F.2d 364, 366-67 (9th Cir.1974) (search of documents "used as a means of committing and constitute evidence” of federal tax offenses); see also United States v. Drebin, 557 F.2d 1316, 1322-23 (9th Cir.1977) (search of "illegally reproduced" film), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 904, 98 S.Ct. 2232, 56 L.Ed.2d 401 (1978); cf. Andresen, 427 U.S. at 480-81, 96 S.Ct. at 2748-49 (provision authorizing search of "other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of a crime at this [time] unknown” upheld only because it accompanied a lengthy list of specified and particular items to be seized pertaining to specific property).
. The government admitted that it sought a warrant only because Dr. Hayes resisted its attempt to subpoena certain medical records. The government’s failure to continue its investigation by way of subpoenas, however, does not necessitate the use of an overbroad warrant. "While we may not question the wisdom of using a warrant, as opposed to less intrusive methods available to [the government], we may demand that 'if such drastic procedure is to be availed of, it should be strictly limited as constitutionally required.’ ’’ Cardwell, 680 F.2d at 78 (quoting VonderAhe, 508 F.2d at 369) (citations omitted).
. See Andresen, 427 U.S. at 466 (search of documents relating to sale of specified property); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1282 (9th Cir.1984) (items and records from gemstone retailer), cert. denied, — U.S. v 106 S.Ct. 75, 88 L.Ed.2d 61 (1985); Gomez-Soto, 723 F.2d at 653 (business transactions by defendant and three corporations, records of international travel, documents indicating residence or citizenship, and handwriting samples); United States v. Offices Known As 50 State Distributing Co., 708 F.2d 1371, 1372 (9th Cir.1983) ("invoices, sales orders”, etc., from national supplier of advertising products), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1021, 104 S.Ct. 1272, 79 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); United States v. Whitten, 706 F.2d 1000, 1008-09 (9th Cir.1983) (records indicating ownership or occupancy of residence), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100, 104 S.Ct. 1593, 80 L.Ed.2d 125 (1984); United States v. Tamura, 694 F.2d 591, 594 (9th Cir.1982) (business records from television cable importer); United States v. Federbush, 625 F.2d 246, 251 (9th Cir.1980) (documents and checks pertaining to a certain bank); United States v. Louderman, 576 F.2d 1383, 1386 (doc*1359uments relating to the activities of a business involved in locating debtors); see also United States v. Pollock, 726 F.2d 1456, 1458 (9th Cir.1984) (items used in methamphetamine manufacture).
. The lack of reasonable guidelines was also noted by other agents. The agents in charge of the Ivanhoe and Farmersville searches testified that although they were looking for documents indicating excessive prescription of Schedule II drugs, there were no specific guidelines by which they were to determine what to seize.