DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz ruled that the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) unlawfully obtained GPS data from a shooting defendant on Aug. 5. That’s evidence the defense wants to suppress.
Daquawn Lubin, 30, and Jonathan Young, 35, are charged with conspiracy while armed, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, aggravated assault knowingly while armed, and four counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence while armed.
Lubin is also charged with unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior crime of violence, possession of a prohibited weapon, and carrying a pistol without a license outside a home or business. These counts stem from their alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting that injured two on the 4000 block of Benning Road, SE, on July 24, 2023.
On Jan. 22, Lubin’s defense attorney, Kevin O’Sullivan, submitted a motion to suppress GPS evidence acquired from Lubin’s rental car, being used by the prosecution. According to O’Sullivan, the evidence was acquired without a warrant, and he was concerned that the lead detective had access to more personal data than necessary to aid in his investigation.
However, Young’s defense attorney, Lisbeth Sapirstein, stated that her client would like to keep the data as evidence in the case.
The prosecution argued the GPS data was still admissible. They mentioned that the lead detective received login details from a car dealership giving him full access to all of Lubin’s loaner car GPS data. However, they insisted that the detective had only accessed the dates of July 24 through 28, 2023. These are the time of and four days after the shooting, which the prosecution believed were necessary in the investigation.
The court called the lead detective who confirmed he had received login details to Lubin’s loaner car data, but stated he had only accessed the dates outlined by the prosecution. The detective was unable to confirm to the full extent of the data.
However, the detective recalled being told a timeframe which may have been 30 days.
Judge Kravitz asked the detective if he had ever received training about the circumstances for warrant to receive data, and if he ever considered he might need a warrant to which the detective answered to both that he did not.
While the detective intended to only access up to four days of tracking data, he instead received authorization for up to 30 days. Knowing this, Judge Kravitz believed that the detective clearly obtained more than seven days of data which would require a warrant.
Judge Kravitz ruled that the police had obtained the information unlawfully.
He said the prosecution has yet to provide a convincing argument that the detective believed he was acting lawfully in which the evidence could be used under the good faith exception.
Additionally, Judge Kravitz also stated that they had not provided evidence of another argument in which the independent source exception could be employed.
That allows evidence obtained illegally to be admissible in court if it was also obtained through a separate lawful means.
Sapirstein and O’Sullivan intend to argue there is no probable cause to continue the case on the grounds that the police lacked a proper basis to make their arrests.
O’Sullivan stated that this argument will be outlined in their remaining motions to suppress evidence.
Judge Kravitz scheduled another date for the prosecution to put together a formal argument that the data can still be used.
Parties are slated to reconvene Aug. 7.
