A third party in possession of Medicaid records was served with a search warrant, and appellant complains of the procedural nature of the third party’s response. [Aside from no standing,] Appellant doesn’t even attempt to show that the exclusionary rule should apply, essentially defaulting that issue for lack of argument. Commonwealth v. Kiago, 2022 Mass. App. LEXIS 99 (Sep. 20, 2022):
The defendants have not demonstrated how Kinnser’s missteps, such as its tardiness in responding to the warrant, prejudiced them, putting aside that they did not even touch on the prejudice issue except in a one sentence footnote in their reply brief. See Boxford v. Massachusetts Highway Dep’t, 458 Mass. 596, 605 n.21, 940 N.E.2d 404 (2010) (argument raised for first time in reply brief is not properly before appellate court); Mole v. University of Mass., 442 Mass. 582, 603 n.18 (2004) (argument raised only in a footnote of the brief need not be considered).