DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz granted a homicide defendant’s motion to suppress virtually all data extracted from his cell phone in a motion hearing on March 9. However, he allowed a witness’s description of the suspect over defense objections in other pre-trial legal maneuvers.
Jaime Macedo, 24, is charged with first-degree felony murder while armed, two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm, and robbery while armed for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of Maxwell Emerson, 25. The incident occurred on the 600 block of Alumni Lane, NE on July 5, 2023.
Judge Kravitz granted Macedo’s motion, filed on Feb. 9, to suppress his cell phone data. He ruled that the search warrant allowing the data extraction was invalid under the Fourth Amendment banning unreasonable searches and seizures.
Judge Kravitz ruled that the search warrant from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) was non-specific and “mostly unsupported by probable cause.” He stated officers used the warrant as an “investigative tool,” with immense discretion in their execution.
Judge Kravitz concluded the executing officer’s written request in support of the warrant consisted only boilerplate statements, and didn’t justify the rationale for the search of Macedo’s cell phone. He stated that several categories of the search were “over broad.”
“This is an obviously invalid search warrant,” said Judge Kravitz, and that the warrant “should’ve never been issued.”
In their opposition, the prosecutors argued that DC Superior Court judges have authorized many phone search warrants in the past similar to this case. Prosecutors also argued that the officers’ written request gave probable cause for the search, even if the warrant was invalid.
“I’m not convinced,” said Judge Kravitz in response.
Judge Kravitz stated that any well-trained officer would know that the search was illegal, “notwithstanding the magistrate’s [judge’s] authorization.”
Judge Kravitz ruled only a small fraction of the 19,000 pages of data from the extraction was valid evidence.
Macedo’s attorney, Jessica Willis, filed another motion on Feb. 9 to suppress a witness’ testimony and exclude her identification of Macedo from trial.
Willis argued that the identification was a result of confirmation bias, claiming that the witness only became confident in her identification after conferring with her romantic partner and calling in a tip to an MPD officer. According to Willis, the critical photo the MPD officer showed her was “clearly a mugshot”–a proposition the prosecution disputed.
Willis also argued that the witness’ testimony should be suppressed on the grounds that it was unreliable, claiming MPD’s information on the wanted and reward flyer was unduly suggestive of Macedo.
The prosecution countered the witness was “never unsure” of whom she saw.
Judge Kravitz stated that there was no undue bias in MPD’s flyers, and there were no constitutional issues challenging the fairness of the identification.
He indicated he would deny both of the defense’s motions to suppress the witness’ testimony and exclude her identification of Macedo.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on March 10 to continue discussing motions.
