E.D.N.Y.: Seizure of def’s cell phone in South Africa by their police does not “shock the conscience” or show virtual agency

“The court must first begin with a discussion of the initial seizure of Chang’s cellphone by South African authorities on December 29, 2018. Under the ‘international silver platter doctrine,’ the U.S. can generally receive evidence obtained by foreign authorities with limited Fourth Amendment scrutiny as to how the evidence was initially seized, unless it ‘shocks the judicial conscience’ or where ‘cooperation with foreign law enforcement officials may implicate constitutional restrictions.’ … [¶] Chang does not identify any particular conduct that he asserts ‘shocks’ the judicial conscience” or shows agency. United States v. Chang, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55185 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2024).

2254 petitioner had early knowledge of his “judicial bias” claim that the magistrate issuing the warrant contributed to the false statement of probable cause. Therefore, it was defaulted in state court. Johnson v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54592 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2024).*

The evidence of defendant’s guilt of felony murder is overwhelming, so the constitutional claim for the alleged illegal search of defendant’s cell phone is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Sayles, 2024 Conn. LEXIS 84 (Mar. 26, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Foreign searches, Issue preclusion, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.