On Aug. 15, defense attorneys Dominique Winters and Hannah Claudio argued before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt that their client’s cellphone was unlawfully seized by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). They asked the court to exclude all evidence taken from the device.
Walter Jenkins, 36, is charged with first-degree murder while armed, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction greater than a year, and carrying a rifle or shotgun outside a home or business. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in the death of David Williams, 52, on the 2000 block of Bruce Place, SE, on Nov. 14, 2021. The incident also left a surviving victim with multiple gunshot wounds to their legs.
Winters argued prosecutors had the burden of proving why the phone was seized in the first place. She asserted that the search warrant lacked probable cause and was issued after an excessive delay, pointing to a Supreme Court ruling that says search warrants must be issued within a certain amount of time.
Winters also cited the case Burns v. United States, a DC Court of Appeals case decided in 2020, which established that search warrants must be very specific to be justified. She argued the prosecution had more than a year to adjust to that decision at the time of Jenkin’s case and still failed to comply.
Winters added that Jenkins needed his phone during the time it was seized to access contact information for witnesses and to add money to his commissary account at the DC Jail.
Prosecutors argued that Jenkins had other means of communication, pointing to his jail call history as proof. They also said the search warrant was authorized by a DC Superior Court judge and was much more detailed than Winters suggested.
In a presentation, Winters argued that “red flag” language used in the warrant, such as “Based on my training and experience” and “There is reason to believe,” relied on assumption rather than fact. She also said prosecutors failed to prove Jenkins used his phone during the time of the alleged crime, which is required under Burns.
Winters concluded that using the phone as an investigative lead was an unconstitutional privacy invasion. “You cannot execute a search warrant in hopes you’ll find evidence of a crime committed,” Winters told the court.
Prosecutors admitted they weren’t prepared to argue the motions orally saying such challenges are typically filed in writing. They said Jenkins sisters had multiple altercations with the victim and that text messages describing those disputes are relevant to proving motive.
The prosecution also said they had probable cause Jenkins used his phone at the time of the crime. They pointed to video footage showing a person said to be Jenkins holding his cellphone and noted that people often use phones while driving for Bluetooth or music.
Judge Brandt allowed prosecutors additional time to respond to the defense.
The court is scheduled to reconvene on Aug. 19 to continue the motions hearing and anticipate a ruling from Judge Brandt.
