2 page-paper brief for a case Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

2 page-paper brief for a matter - Essay ExampleSDI defendants aggressively marketed a test for diagnosing a common sleep disorder. tally to an affidavit sworn by IRS Special Agent Julie Raftery, they at times bil conduct twice for their go and made reward compensationments to doctors who spokespersonicipated in their tests. The US government claims that SDI employees who were in participating physicians offices would persuade tolerants to take part in a sleep study. As the cardiac diagnostic companies doing business with SDI would claim to complete a report of the results of the sleep studies, SDI staff would put fake stamps bearing the signatures of physicians reports. SDI would then recommend that a patient should take part in further studies, in which the patients health insurer would pay for them. The affidavit revealed cases of suspected tax fraud. At the end of a 2 year investigation led by the Internal Revenue Service with the active participation of 4 other federal and sound out agencies, investigators concluded that SDI Future Health, Inc. had committed Medicare fraud. Based on the results gotten from the investigation, IRS Special Agent Julie Raftery sought for a sanction to search SDIs premises on January 28, 2002. The warrant was based on an affidavit which had information collected from 3 former employees and 2 associates of SDI.Whether the warrant in bodiedd Special Agent Rafterys affidavit can be evaluated to substantiation if it meets the Fourth Amendments requirements. If incorporated, then the affidavit should be evaluated to see if it satisfies deficiencies in the warrant.The SDI defendants also purportedly forced patients to commit visits to SDI clinics, and told them that their assigned doctors had asked them to participate in the sleep studies. The US government states that Kaplan and Brunk lack a base to contend the search and collection of materials from SDIs premises. According to the government, a corporate defendant has sta nding with respect to searches of corporate property and