Defendant argued that his arrest had not yet occurred, so he could not be subjected to a SI. The appellate court found, however, that the search was justified under both SI and automobile exception. United States v. Coleman, 458 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. August 10, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Health care fraud warrant for “including but not limited to, financial, business, patient, insurance and other records related to the business of Dr. Pradeep Srivastava, to include Drs. Balnath Bhandary and Felipe Robinson, for the period January 1, 1998 to Present, which may constitute evidence of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1347” and “[f]inancial records, including but not limited to accounting records, tax records, accounts receivable logs and ledgers, banking records, and other records reflecting income and expenditures of the business” did not authorize seizure of records to be used in a tax prosecution. United States v. Srivastava, 444 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Md. August 4, 2006), relying on United States v. Debbi, 244 F. Supp. 2d 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), which is nearly identical.<\/p>\n
Defendant’s arrest was justified on at least constructive possession grounds, so a SI was proper. United States v. Reynolds, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55010 (M.D. Ala. July 20, 2006).*<\/p>\n
RS justified the detention and that ripened into PC with a dog sniff. United States v. Tyler, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55115 (S.D. Ga. July 7, 2006).* <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading