Photo of Cara Arnold

Cara Arnold

With a background at the DOJ, Cara defends healthcare clients in commercial litigation, fraud allegations, and white collar matters. Cara focuses her practice on hospitals, health systems, and other healthcare organizations. She concentrates primarily on litigation, fraud and abuse claims, and False Claims Act violations, and she guides clients through both internal and government investigations. In addition, she also counsels organizations on compliance with a wide array of healthcare regulations, helping them prevent future litigation. After cutting her teeth on healthcare fraud at the DOJ, Cara loves working directly with these organizations and is fascinated by their complexity. With regulations changing rapidly, she understands the monumentally difficult task large health systems face in regulatory compliance, and she provides clients with the legal guidance they need to remain focused on their mission.

As two defendants in an alleged cryptocurrency fraud case are finding out, what you search for on the internet could find its way into the courtroom and be used against you. The use of internet search history as evidence in federal criminal cases is relatively new. In this case, prosecutors are seeking to introduce defendants’ post-trade internet searches as evidence of fraudulent intent. Their searches allegedly ranged from “top crypto law firms” and “wire fraud statute” to “can your device be searched without a lawyer” and “crypto theft deductible.”

The critical question: should internet search history be admissible as evidence at trial? The answer is far from simple. Defendants generally have moved to exclude them, and the arguments for and against exclusion highlight the complex interplay between relevance, prejudice, ambiguity, and privilege.

When companies receive their first 2703(d) order from law enforcement, their response is usually a mix of confusion and terror. In the ever-evolving landscape of digital communications, understanding the legal mechanisms that govern data access is crucial. One such mechanism is the 2703(d) order, a powerful tool that law enforcement is using more and more as digital evidence becomes more robust and complex. This post examines the nature of a 2703(d) order and considers its implications for organizations, privacy officers, compliance professionals, and defense counsel.