DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz challenged prosecutors on the admissibility of cell phone data during a motions hearing on March 3.
Jaime Macedo, 24, is charged with robbery while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, felony murder while armed, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 25-year-old Maxwell Emerson, which occurred on the 600 block of Alumni Lane, NE, on July 5, 2023.
Parties argued a motion to suppress cell phone data that was collected from Macedo’s iPhone using an allegedly invalid warrant. During the hearing, prosecutors argued that the signed warrant gave police the authority to search data on Macedo’s phone by attempting to establish probable cause.
The prosecution stated that it wanted to find information regarding his relationship with Emerson, as well as anyone else involved in the incident. Prosecutors were also hoping to use GPS data from the phone to prove that Macedo was likely on the scene during the incident.
Since the defendant is allegedly seen holding and using his phone before, during, and after the shooting, prosecutors said police have probable cause to search the data on Macedo’s phone.
According to Judge Kravitz, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective who had written the warrant in question had previously failed to get the warrant signed, only succeeding after making minor changes and asking a different judge for a signature.
Judge Kravitz stated that it appears the detective didn’t put much effort into the warrant and was using the same template when drafting different warrants; “cherry picking” information.
These deficiencies, according to the judge, call into question the validity of the search warrant, which could have been signed by mistake.
Throughout the hearing, parties discussed the impact of the “Burns decision,” a 2020 DC Court of Appeals ruling that narrows the scope of police interpretations of judicial warrants in regard to searching cell phone data.
On rebuttal, defense attorney Jessica Willis claimed that the prosecution was restrained by Burns which held, “Mr. Burns’s convictions therefore must be reversed unless they were ‘surely unattributable’ to the erroneous admission of his cell phone data.”
Parties are scheduled to meet on March 9, where Judge Kravitz will decide whether or not the cell phone data is admissible.
