United States v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 10 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | Crim. 6:21-cr-00013-GFVT-HAI-1,6:21-cr-00013-GFVT-HAI-2 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT TAYLOR and LORI BARNETT Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT TAYLOR and LORI BARNETT Defendants.
Crim. Nos. 6:21-cr-00013-GFVT-HAI-1, 6:21-cr-00013-GFVT-HAI-2
United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
November 10, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on two motions to suppress by Defendants Lori Barnett and Robert Taylor. [R. 263; R. 264.] The motions seek to suppress the introduction of evidence from two laptops and a cell phone seized during a search of a residence located on Spring Water Lane in Knoxville, Tennessee. These motions are broad ranging and frequently overlap. While the motions are complex, their resolution is simple. Because the government seized the devices pursuant to the valid Spring Water Lane warrant, Ms. Barnett's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained from Her Cell Phone and Laptop [R. 263] is DENIED and Dr. Taylor and Ms. Barnett's Motion to Suppress Electronic Evidence [R. 264] is DENIED IN PART.
I
The United States has charged eleven defendants with a total of twenty-seven counts, including money laundering, health care and wire fraud, conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances, falsification of medical records, and various other conspiracies. [R. 1.] These charges stem from the defendants' involvement with EHC, a medical facility “designed to combat the opioid epidemic” that was founded by Dr. Robert Taylor. [R. 1; R. 190 at 1-2.] Ms.
Barnett worked at EHC as a registered nurse and as manager of EHC's administrative functions. [R. 190 at 2.]
On December 12, 2018, DEA Special Agent Jared Sullivan applied for a warrant to search Ms. Barnett and Dr. Taylor's residence at 223 Spring Water Lane in Knoxville, Tennessee. [R. 264-2 at 1-2.] In the affidavit supporting the application, Agent Sullivan stated that a joint investigation between the Kentucky Attorney General's Office and the DEA had provided reason to believe that Dr. Taylor and others affiliated with EHC were distributing Suboxone and other controlled substances outside of the scope of their medical practice. [R. 264-2 at 8.] The affidavit laid out the investigators' suspicions from a variety of sources, including interviews with former EHC physicians, pharmacists who filled EHC prescriptions, and current and former patients. Id. at 16-23, 23-26, 26-35. Magistrate Judge Bruce Guyton found probable cause supported issuing a warrant to search the Spring Water Lane residence. [R. 301-1 at 2-3.] The warrant specified several items to be seized and a procedure for search of any computer data found at the residence. Id. at 4-6.
On the morning of December 13, 2018, federal officials led by Agent Sullivan executed the Spring Water Lane warrant and entered Ms. Barnett and Dr. Taylor's home. [R. 190 at 2; R. 198 at 2.] There, they extensively interviewed Dr. Taylor and Ms. Barnett. [R. 263 at 2.] During the interviews, Dr. Taylor and Ms. Barnett mentioned using their phones to conduct EHC affairs.[1] Id. (citing [R. 263-2 at 7]). Ultimately, Agent Sullivan seized Ms. Barnett's iPhone, her Apple MacBook Pro laptop, and Dr. Taylor's Apple computer. [R. 263-2 at 8.] Ms. Barnett claims that she “never consented to the seizure of her cell phone (or laptop) and “refused to give
the agents her password to her cell phone despite being asked multiple times.” Id. at 3. She also “immediately sought the return of her cell phone and laptop” and followed up in writing in January and March of 2019. Id. Four months after the search of Ms. Barnett and Dr. Taylor's home, Magistrate Judge Hanly Ingram signed warrants authorizing the government to search the contents of Ms. Barnett's laptop and cell phone. [R. 263-1; R. 263-5.]
Ms. Barnett and Dr. Taylor have filed two motions challenging the validity of the Spring Water Lane warrant and the seizure of their devices. The motions are often inconsistent. In one, Ms. Barnett argues that the Spring Water Lane warrant is hyper specific in referencing a laptop rather than an iPhone. [R. 263 at 2.] In the other, Dr. Taylor and Ms. Barnett declare the warrant to be overbroad and insufficiently particularized to limit authorities' seizure of their possessions. [R. 264 at 17.] Ms. Barnett moved to suppress any evidence obtained from her cell phone and laptop. [R. 263.] Ms. Barnett and Dr. Taylor together moved to suppress a variety of electronic evidence, including any obtained pursuant to the Spring Water Lane warrant.[2] [R. 264.]
These motions are “broad, complicated, and at times difficult to decipher. Many of the claims appear to have been raised purely to preserve arguments on appeal.” [R. 447 at 3.] Because the motions involve the same two warrants and suppression of overlapping evidence, this Opinion will analyze them simultaneously. Magistrate Judge Ingram reviewed both motions and recommended denial. [R. 384; R. 447.] Ms. Barnett and Dr. Taylor objected to Judge Ingram's recommendations, so the Court reviews the matter de novo. [R. 460; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).]
II
The Spring Water Lane warrant is the albatross that prevents Dr. Taylor and Ms. Barnett's arguments from taking flight. They contest the validity of the warrant, claiming that it did not sufficiently limit the Government's seizure of their belongings. Ms. Barnett also asserts that the warrant did not include her iPhone. Because authorities seized her phone without a judicial permission, Ms. Barnett argues that the subsequent four-month delay in searching it offends the Fourth Amendment. However, the Spring Water Lane warrant was valid. It did cover her iPhone. So, there was no unreasonable delay. For these reasons, the Court adopts the recommended dispositions proposed by Judge Ingram and denies Ms. Barnett's Motion to Suppress [R. 263] and the related portion of Dr. Taylor and Ms. Barnett's Motion to Suppress [R. 264].
A
The Fourth Amendment guarantees that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Search warrants focus on places and things rather than persons, and the Supreme Court has clarified that the “critical element in a reasonable search is not that the owner of the property is suspected of crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the specific ‘things' to be searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought.” Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 555-56 (1978); see also United States v. Church, 823 F.3d 351, 355 (6th Cir. 2016). To establish probable cause for a search, an affidavit accompanying a warrant must demonstrate (1) “the items sought are seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal activity”; and (2) “the items will be found in
the place to be searched.” Church, 823 F.3d at 355 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
As to the particularity of a warrant, a warrant “must enable the searcher to reasonably ascertain and identify the things which are authorized to be seized.” United States v. Savoy, 280 Fed.Appx. 504, 510 (6th Cr. 2008). The degree of detail “is flexible and will vary depending on the crime involved and the types of items sought.” United States v. Hanna, 661 F.3d 271, 286 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 477 (6th Cir. 2001)). A warrant need only be as specific as “the circumstances and the nature of the alleged crime permit.” United States v. Logan, 250 F.3d 350, 365 (6th Cir. 2001). “[A] warrant authorizing the seizure of a defendant's home computer equipment and digital media for a subsequent off-site electronic search is not unreasonable or overbroad, as long as the probable-cause showing in the warrant application and affidavit demonstrate a sufficient chance of finding some needles in the computer haystack.” United States v. Evers, 669 F.3d 645, 653 (6th Cir. 2012).
When a defendant challenges a search made pursuant to a warrant, the reviewing court may consider only “the four corners of the affidavit” to determine whether probable cause existed. United States v. Frazier, 423 F.3d 526, 535 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Hatcher, 473 F.2d 321, 324 (6th Cir. 1973)). The reviewing court affords great deference to an issuing judge's determination, although the issuing judge's discretion is not boundless. United States v. May, 399 F.3d 817, 822 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Czuprynski, 8 F.3d 1113, 1116 (6th Cir. 1993). The question is “whether there was ‘a substantial basis for finding that the affidavit established probable cause to believe that the evidence would be found at the place [to be searched].'” United States v. Hill, 27 F.4th 1155, 1191 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez-Suazo, 346 F.3d 637, 643 (6th Cir. 2003)).
According to the affidavit behind the Spring Water Lane warrant, investigators learned from prescription monitoring databases and interviews with former patients that Kentucky residents drove to EHC's Tennessee locations, where they received high dosages of Suboxone. [R. 264-2 at 11-12.] EHC also frequently prescribed benzodiazepines such as Xanax and Klonopin along with Suboxone, a combination that investigators noted “seldom has a legitimate medical purpose.” Id. at 13. The investigation suggested that EHC charged its Kentucky patients cash for their office visits. Id. at 14. Yet, EHC's patients used Medicaid benefits to pay pharmacies for the prescriptions because several EHC doctors were approved providers under the Kentucky Medicaid program. Id. Based on state records, investigators learned that two of EHC's doctors were responsible for the second-highest and sixth-highest Suboxone prescriptions to Kentucky Medicaid participants. Id.
The affidavit also revealed several EHC business practices that investigators found...
To continue reading
Request your trial