Opinion ID: 145463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Probable Cause Supported the Warrants

Text: The District Court found, and the defendant argues, that the warrants lacked probable cause to believe that the patients' medical records would be found in the defendant's medical offices. We reverse the District Court's finding on this issue. In making a probable cause determination, an issuing Magistrate Judge's task is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the `veracity' and `basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). A court reviewing an issuing Magistrate Judge's determination, moreover, is to pay great deference to the Magistrate Judge's finding of probable cause, and should uphold a warrant so long as the Magistrate Judge had a substantial basis for . . . concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing. Leake, 998 F.2d at 1363 (internal quotations and citations omitted). In United States v. Word, this Court held that where individuals are patients of a physician, probable cause exist[s] for believing that their medical records would be located at the [physician]'s office. 806 F.2d 658, 662 (6th Cir.1986). In light of Gates, Leake and Word, here Agent Lee's affidavit in the warrant applications provided a foundation for a common sense determination that there was a fair probability that evidence of health care fraudnamely, the defendant's patient files and recordswould be found at the defendant treating physician's offices. This foundation stemmed from the connection Agent Lee drew between the defendant and the offices in question. Agent Lee based his affidavit on his personal, two-year involvement in the case; the basis for his conclusion included his: 1) personal visits to each location and photographs thereof at Attachment A of each warrant; 2) review of the defendant's billing data and hospital records; and 3) interviews of the defendant's former office administrator, the defendant's former medical partners, and insurance company representatives. We accordingly hold that Agent Lee's affidavit and photographs provided the issuing Magistrate Judge with a substantial basis to find probable cause to believe that the patient files and records would be found at the defendant's offices at the locations specified. The District Court's determination to the contrary was in error. [11]