United States Sixth Circuit

In a prosecution of a pediatric doctor for health care fraud and related crimes, district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from two medical officers is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) a lack of formal incorporation by reference into the warrants does not justify a finding of facial insufficiency as the search warrants incorporated any patient list presented to the issuing judge; 2) district court's suppression of defendant's patient files is vacated to determine which list, if any, came before the issuing Magistrate judge, and to suppress only patient files seized beyond the scope of such list as required under Groh v. Ramirez; 3) suppression of the non-patient file evidence was proper; 4) the inevitable discovery doctrine was inapplicable; and 5) the district court's finding that the warrants lacked probable cause to believe that the patients' medical records would be found in the defendant's medical offices is reversed as probable cause supported the warrants.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/04/2009
• Decided 05/04/2010
• Published 05/04/2010

Judges

• Before GRIFFIN and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; CARR, Chief District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:Stephen C. Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Orin S. Kerr, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Stephen C. Parker, Kevin Whitmore, Assistant United States Attorneys, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Orin S. Kerr, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C., Steven E. Farese, Sr., Farese, Farese & Farese, P.A., Ashland, Mississippi, Marc N. Garber, The Garber Law Firm, P.C., Marietta, Georgia, Daniel A. Clancy, Clancy Law Firm, Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellee.