### Sean Combs' Lawyers Accuse Prosecutors of Improperly Seizing Handwritten Notes

Lawyers representing Sean "Diddy" Combs have accused prosecutors of wrongfully taking handwritten notes from his jail cell, asserting that these notes contain privileged attorney-client information. This accusation was made on Monday as Combs' defense team requested an evidentiary hearing to clarify what was seized and the rationale behind it.

The defense team pointed to what they called an "outrageous government conduct," alleging that prosecutors searched Combs' federal jail in Brooklyn and took materials crucial for his trial preparation. Defense attorney Marc Agnifilo emphasized that the search violated substantive due process, demanding that prosecutors explain the actions to US District Court Judge Arun Subramanian.

Combs has been detained in Brooklyn since mid-September following his arrest on federal charges alleging decadeslong physical and sexual violence at elaborate parties. He has pled not guilty, with his lawyers maintaining that all sexual contact was consensual and suggesting that the accusers are motivated by financial gain.

The controversy over the notes emerged late last Friday during a legal battle over bail. Prosecutors referenced these materials in a 30-page memorandum opposing Combs' third bail request. They argued that Combs posed a risk of obstructing justice by contacting potential witnesses. The memo noted that "notes from the defendant's cell" were obtained during a comprehensive sweep of Bureau of Prisons facilities, but details were redacted.

Prosecutors assured that any materials potentially containing privileged communications were reviewed by a filter team to remove barred content. However, Agnifilo rebutted that the prosecution's memo indicated the filter team failed to exclude privileged materials, which were allegedly used against Combs.

The defense and prosecutors are scheduled to meet in court on Friday for further bail arguments. Combs' previous bail requests, which included substantial collateral and strict monitoring conditions, were denied by two federal judges due to concerns about obstruction of justice and community risk.