\u201cThe 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 \u2018international silver platter doctrine,\u2019 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 \u2018shocks the judicial conscience\u2019 or where \u2018cooperation with foreign law enforcement officials may implicate constitutional restrictions.\u2019 \u2026 [\u00b6] Chang does not identify any particular conduct that he asserts \u2018shocks\u2019 the judicial conscience\u201d or shows agency. United States v. Chang, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55185 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner had early knowledge of his \u201cjudicial bias\u201d 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).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt of felony murder is overwhelming, so the constitutional claim for the alleged illegal search of defendant\u2019s cell phone is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Sayles, 2024 Conn. LEXIS 84 (Mar. 26, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe 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 \u2018international silver platter doctrine,\u2019 the U.S. can generally receive evidence obtained by foreign authorities with … Continue reading