Defendant was subjected to a search in Malaysia for identity theft that he alleged included a beating after the search occurred. That evidence was used in the Northern District of Georgia to prosecute him for aggravated identity theft. He admits that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to him in a foreign country where he had no connection to the United States except as to his victims here. “Moreover, while the alleged beating may violate American norms of decency, Olaniyi did not show it violates international norms of decency.” It was significant that the search had already occurred prior to the alleged beating. United States v. Olaniyi, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35759 (11th Cir. Dec. 2, 2019):
The general rule is this evidence is admissible because it was seized by foreign officials in their own countries, and Olaniyi is a non-resident with no connections to the United States. As to the two exceptions identified in Emmanuel, Olaniyi failed to show the conduct of the Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) officers shocked the judicial conscience. Even assuming a beating occurred, the evidence supports it occurred after the RMP officers had seized the items, suggesting the beating did not effectuate the seizure. Moreover, while the alleged beating may violate American norms of decency, Olaniyi did not show it violates international norms of decency. See id. at 1331. The second exception is inapplicable because Olaniyi concedes he is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271, 274-75 (1990) (stating the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by U.S. agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country as aliens do not enjoy the protections of the Fourth Amendment if they have no previous significant voluntary connection with the United States).