AK: No PC shown for cell phone search in a Medicaid fraud case

In a Medicaid fraud case, the state did not show probable cause to believe evidence would be found on the cell phone of the Medicaid provider. The search warrant was also not particular for the cell phone. The warrant authorized seizure of computer media in the dentists’ office. Lookhart v. State, 2025 Alas. App. LEXIS 46 (May 9, 2025):

The affidavit in this case did not provide any explanation for why Lookhart’s phone would contain programs or communications relating to dental services, billing, employment, policies, accounting, payroll, or insurance claims. In fact, as we have mentioned, it did not discuss cell phones at all. Given that the application did not contain any non-speculative indication that Lookhart’s or Cranford’s cell phones would contain the dental records, healthcare records, or other documents that were mentioned in the affidavit, we conclude that the affidavit did not establish probable cause to search Lookhart’s and Cranford’s cell phones.

. . .

But even if the warrant particularly described the items that law enforcement could seize, it did not particularly describe the “place” to be searched. Instead, the warrant in this case authorized a “forensic examination of all electronic data at an off-site location,” and it did not limit the search to only particularly described areas within the phones — for example, to particular types of data, to data acquired during a particular timeframe, or to data found within particular applications.

Because the warrant seemingly authorized a generalized search of all of the cell phone’s electronic data, i.e., it did not comply with the particularity requirement, we conclude that the search warrant in this case was an unlawful general warrant. Thus, the search of Lookhart’s cell phone — and the seizure of the text messages, photos, and videos located within the phone — was unconstitutional.