This case actually incorporates several issues. The defendants in this case are Little’s Pharmacy and its owner, James Little. The DEA conducted an audit of the pharmacy and determined that there were significant shortages and overages of controlled substances. An audit involves examining a pharmacy’s records for controlled substances received and dispensed, together with inventory records and comparing the results to the stock on hand to determine whether shortages or overages exist. In this case, the audit was triggered by a tip that diversion was occurring. Because this was not a routine audit, the agent obtained an AIW rather than relying on a notice of inspection, which would have required Little’s consent. As you read this case, consider several points:

What is the probable cause requirement for an AIW as opposed to a search warrant? When would a search warrant be required over an AIW?

Should the change in the CSA penalty standard from strict liability to negligence be made retroactive?

What is the difference between strict liability and negligence?

Has the DEA proved recordkeeping violations exist even though all the records seized conformed with the law?