D.P.R.: No REP of corporate officers in medical records in health care fraud case

Records were taken by a corporate whistleblower on a flash drive from a Puerto Rican health care provider. That led to a 122-count indictment for health care fraud. A motion to suppress was filed over the records. Defendants were corporate officials of the provider, and they have no standing, no reasonable expectation of privacy in the records. Moreover, they were accessible by many others, even from overseas. There is also no reasonable expectation of privacy in emails received by the recipients. United States v. Gutkin, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227049 (D.P.R. Dec. 19, 2023).

A Facebook account was searched under a warrant, but defendant never claimed it was his. He thus lacks standing to challenge the search for his posts to that account. Alternatively, a person with apparent authority consented to a search of the account. United States v. Lanier, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226521 (D. Nev. Dec. 19, 2023),* adopting 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227330 (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2023).*

On the question of consent to submit to a search after arrest and protective sweep at a motel room, the court finds defendant’s testimony not credible. The officers’ statements were consistent with other evidence of the search, and defendant admitted at the suppression hearing lying to the officers about his sources of meth. United States v. Vanhook, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226994 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Protective sweep, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.