Page 25 - TPA Journal March - April 2018

investigated the case, contending that the warrant ble cause of fraud limited to a particular patient or
authorizing the search of Spectrum does not com- group of patients, the resulting warrant authoriz-
ply with the constitutional requirement that it ing seizure of all of Spectrums patient files would
particularly describ[e] the . . . things to be be problematic.
seized. U.S. CONST. amend. IV.
But the magistrates authorization to seize all of
We interpret that language to require enough detail Spectrums patient files was supported by evi-
in the warrant to allow a reasonable agent to know dence of pervasive fraud in the PHP program,
what items she is permitted to take. The concern is which was a major part of the clinics business.
that the magistrate authorizing the warrant, and The affidavit summarized information from two
not the agents executing it, should be deciding former Spectrum employees and two patients
which items may be seized. Generic language revealing that (1) patients ended up in PHP
may satisfy this particularity requirement if because of fees paid to recruiters and patients, not
describing a more specific item is not possible. because of physician referrals, and (2) the time the
The warrant must further not be overbroad, mean- patients spent at Spectrum was spent watching
ing there must be probable cause to seize the par- television, playing bingo, and coloring rather than
ticular things named in the warrant. This related receiving the PHP treatment being billed to
but distinct concept flows from the probable cause Medicarebillings that exceeded $90 million.
requirement. Together, the two aspects of the The information presented to the magistrate thus
Fourth Amendment require that (1) a warrant pro- provided probable cause to conclude that fraud
vide sufficient notice of what the agents may seize and kickbacks infected the entire PHP program.
and (2) probable cause exist to justify listing those That evidence of a wide-ranging conspiracy and
items as potential evidence subject to seizure. scheme justified the seizure of patient files, at a
minimum those of PHP patients used in the pros-
Sanjar s challenge, which mostly objects to the ecution. The district court did not err in declining
warrant allowing seizure of all patient files, seems to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the
to be more about the latter. In terms of the notice warrant.
the former requires, the warrant authorizes seizure
of documents constituting . . . patient files as (discussion of other, unrelated legal issues omit-
well as those relating to Medicare claims, the PHP ted)
program, and Spectrums finances. That list, even
if somewhat generic, provided sufficient notice of U.S. v. Sanjar, et. al., 5th Cir., No. 15-20025,
what items the agents could take. The agents did Nov. 20th, 2017.
not seize the patient files because of a judgment
call they made when executing the warrant; they
seized the files because the magistrate had TRAFFIC – REASONABLE SUSPICION
expressly authorized them to do so. FOR STOP

The principal question is thus whether the broad Appellee, Jose Luis Cortez, was stopped by a
authorization to seize all patient files (and other State Trooper for unlawfully driving on the
listed categories of documents) was supported by improved shoulder of the highway because the
probable cause. The scope of the seizure depends tires on Cortezs 1 minivan purportedly touched
on the scope of the suspected crime. If the evi- the white painted fog line separating the road-
dence presented to the magistrate provided proba- way from the shoulder. Upon searching Cortezs

March/April 2018 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 21