The affidavit for Search Warrant No. 96-166 gave no information linking the place to be searched, 911 East Medlock Drive, Phoenix, Arizona, with Rydbom, the victim, or with any items sought. Did this violate the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement?

Ohio seized Rydbom's Arizona belongings from the Phoenix Police without a warrant, without any specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement, and in violation of the Arizona judge's written order for the items to remain in Phoenix Police custody pending further court order. Did this violate the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause?

After losing jurisdiction of the underlying murder, Ohio gave Rydbom's personal belongings to West Virginia absent any warrants, subpoenas, or any specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.

Simultaneously, while sitting at the W.Va.. prosecution Ohio refused to share evidence in its possession (e.g. forensic evidence and grand jury testimony of prosecution trial witnesses) sought by Rydbom; West Virginia claimed impotence and refused to demand the evidence from Ohio.

(A) Did Ohio and West Virginia act as one sovereign to avoid subpoena and warrant requirements, while also acting as separate sovereigns to keep evidence away from Rydbom -- with the purpose and effect of depriving Rydbom of a fair trial, in violation of the Compulsory Process, Due Process, Equal Protection, and Confrontation clauses of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

(B) Did West Virginia act as a "tool" of Ohio and subject Rydbom to a "sham" prosecution, as warned against in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959) -- with the purpose and effect of depriving Rydbom of a fair trial, in violation of the Compulsory Process, Due Process, Equal Protection, and Confrontation clauses of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Questions Presented