Whether the Fourth Amendment is violated when foreign law enforcement officials engage in wiretapping at the behest of United States officials pursuant to a joint investigation, to further the United States' criminal investigation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Fourth Amendment is violated when foreign law enforcement officials engage in wiretapping at the behest of United States officials pursuant to a joint investigation, in order to further the United States’ criminal investigation. 2. Whether in reviewing whether foreign wiretapping violated the Fourth Amendment, courts should apply the “joint venture” doctrine used by most federal circuits, or the less protective “virtual agent” standard used by the Second Circuit. 3. Whether Batson v. Kentucky and its progeny permit a trial court to reseat a challenged juror when there is no claim by the opposing party that the strike of that juror was for a constitutionally impermissible reason. 4. Whether the three-step burden-shifting allows for a trial court to sua sponte reseat a challenged juror when the opposing party has expressly stated that they do not object to the strike of that juror. 5. Whether this Court’s decision in McCollum v. Georgia recognizes plenary authority on the part of a trial court to make its own determination as to whether there has been a discriminatory challenge under Batson, and to reseat a juror regardless of whether there is an objection to that juror. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued 6. Whether a Batson objection is timely if it is not raised until the challenged jurors have been excused and left the court. 7. Whether the Fourth Amendment is violated when a warrantless administrative search that would otherwise be legally permissible pursuant to New York v. Burger was performed as a pretext to allow for collection of information to assist in a Federal criminal investigation.