Warning: This article contains discussions of sexual assault, which some readers may find distressing.
Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ legal team is pushing back against the search warrants used to investigate two of his properties, arguing that the evidence obtained should be suppressed.
In a court filing on Sunday, February 23, Combs’ attorneys challenged the legality of the searches as he faces charges of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and prostitution, following allegations from at least three women.
As part of the ongoing investigation, authorities conducted searches at Combs’ properties in Los Angeles and Miami.
An indictment later claimed that investigators uncovered items during the searches that appeared to be linked to allegations of so-called “Freak Off” events, where sex-trafficking victims were allegedly forced to participate in group sex acts.
Among the items reportedly found were lubricant, over 1,000 bottles of baby oil, drugs, and three AR-15 rifles.
However, Combs’ legal team is now pushing to have this evidence suppressed, arguing that the search warrants used to obtain it, including those for his homes, iCloud accounts, phones, and a hotel room, were “unconstitutional.”
According to ABC News, the defense claims that key facts that could have been favorable to Combs were omitted from the warrant applications, creating what they described as a “grossly distorted picture of reality.”
Combs’ attorneys further argue that the judge who approved the searches should have been provided with this missing context. They specifically pointed to details in the warrant applications that were based on information from an unidentified individual referred to as “Producer-1.”
Combs’ lawyers argued that the accusations made by “Producer-1” about their time working for him were “never credible” and pointed out that prosecutors do not plan to call this individual as a witness.
The defense’s motion, which has been heavily redacted, does not specify what key facts were allegedly omitted by prosecutors when applying for the search warrants.
In their filing, Combs’ attorneys wrote: “It worked, the government got its warrants, leaked damaging information, and then executed its military-style raids at Combs’ residences. Rather than giving the reviewing magistrate a fair summary, the government hid exculpatory evidence to bolster its case.”
The defense is now seeking to have all evidence obtained through the searches suppressed or, alternatively, to be granted a hearing to review the government’s actions in securing the warrants.
Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges, with his attorneys previously stating that they believe “the truth will prevail” when the case goes to trial.
