Attorneys representing Sean “Diddy” Combs informed a federal judge in Manhattan on Tuesday that they have gathered sufficient evidence to claim that their client’s constitutional rights have been violated.
The issue arose after an October raid of Combs’ jail cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, which led to the emergency hearing. Several law enforcement agencies were involved in the operation, but Combs’ defense team argues that investigators overstepped by photographing several pages from his notebooks.
These actions allegedly allowed the prosecution to gain access to confidential trial strategies, such as expert testimony and witness plans, breaching attorney-client privilege.
The judge overseeing the case appeared aghast at the incident.
‘Several terabytes’: Diddy prosecutors shed light on ‘voluminous’ discovery, including iCloud accounts and dozens of seized devices, as defense slams ‘leaks’ of grand jury info
‘Most eligible bachelor’ attorney who raped sleeping woman gets sentenced after years of allegations and acquittals
“What happened here?” U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian asked the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, according to a courtroom report by Inner City Press.
“Why were they taking photos of Mr. Combs’ notebooks?”
The government’s attorney said the investigator in question was not a member of the prosecution team, but rather, a Bureau of Prisons official focused on dealing with violations of jail rules and would not have been there otherwise. The prosecutor went on to allege that Combs, in fact, had been violating said rules and had been caught by the BOP investigator monitoring his communications.
“Is this a Fourth Amendment violation?” the judge asked the government.
The prosecutor replied that the government had no prior knowledge the BOP investigator would be part of the sweep and insisted they only learned about the photos of the notebooks after the sweep.
Combs’ attorneys say this is a toothpaste-out-of-the-tube situation.
“According to the Government, these nineteen pages were given to, and are in the possession of, the trial team, which has already started using these privileged materials to its advantage, including its opposition to bail,” the defense’s Tuesday filing reads.
The defense letter motion catalogs the extent of the breach:
Based on the materials provided as Exhibit A, it appears a government investigator (“Investigator 1”) took photographs of several different items. These include (i) intact pages from two different legal pads, (ii) pages of an address book, (iii) a ripped-out, folded-over page of a third legal pad, (iv) a ripped-out page of another legal pad and (v) a ripped-out page of yet a different legal pad, as will be described below…
And, in a footnote, the defense objects to the notion that one mere “notebook” was rifled through — describing the documents as having been collected from “a number of legal pads.”
The government conceded that at least some of those materials were legal in nature — but argued that they were not stored in a way that immediately identified them as legal, Inner City News reports.
During the hearing, lead defense attorney Marc Agnifilo said he and his client were not even sure about the extent of the breach.
The government pushed back — saying they had provided the defense with even more than the 19 pages of legal-related information.
The judge did not seem convinced.
“Is it standard procedure to photograph notebooks, rather than take them so it could be known they were taken?” Subramanian asked.
To which Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik replied: “I don’t know.”
The court was also concerned about how the government learned about the existence of the privileged materials.
The prosecutor argued that a filter team had provided them after collecting them as part of a “covert” investigation. When asked to explain why the government still needed a filter team to deal with discovery since charges had already been brought, the prosecutor said the grand jury investigation was ongoing — holding out the possibility of additional charges in the case.
Related: Diddy Has Enough Evidence To Take Down Half Of Hollywood
During the hearing, the court seemed amenable to at least some of the materials being made unavailable for government use.
Combs’ attorneys argued the sweep itself was a pretext — and asked the judge to grant them surveillance footage of the raid itself.
The defense told the court they would likely consider filing a motion to dismiss the indictment or a motion to have the present prosecution team removed from the case.
