In a hearing before DC Superior Court Judge Edelman on Aug. 4, the defense argued that past disagreements between a homicide defendant and the victim does not warrant a phone search by police.
Joshua Franklin, 41, is charged with first-degree murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior crime of violence. These charges stem from his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 27-year-old Andrew Session on Jan. 21, 2021 on the 4400 block of 3rd Street, SE. Session sustained 12 gunshot wounds.
Franklin’s charges all face an aggravating factor of allegedly being committed during his release for a prior offense.
In court, parties clashed over the defense’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from Franklin’s iPhone that was seized on March 10, 2021. On that date, Franklin was briefly arrested for an unrelated offense, a no permit charge after a traffic stop, since he could not produce a valid driver’s license.
Franklin’s attorneys, Terrence Austin and Emma Mlyniec, argued that the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) lacked reasonable suspicion to issue a Be On the Look Out for (BOLO) circulation that led to the seizure of Franklin’s phone.
According to court documents, the BOLO directed MPD officers who came in contact with Franklin to “stop him, seize all electronic devices, and contact” lead detectives because he was a suspect in Session’s homicide. However, detectives did not have a search warrant before Franklin’s March 10, 2021 arrest.
The prosecution argued against the motion and called an MPD detective who was involved in the initial search and interviewing process that occurred at the crime scene for Session’s murder. The detective said she learned from witnesses that there was a “volatile relationship” between Session and Franklin which escalated before the homicide.
In addition, the detective alleged that Franklin may have been motivated to retaliate against Session after a reported domestic violence assault between Session and Franklin’s daughter.
According to the detective, Franklin’s daughter, who was an eyewitness, was interviewed on the day of Session’s death and consented to an examination of her cell phone. The detective noted that she found messages between Franklin and his daughter about Session’s death which were deleted.
“Why would you delete messages?” the detective pondered on the stand. The prosecution noted that they also found this behavior suspicious.
The detective also stated that witnesses reported that a group of individuals chased Session up a hill while holding firearms before gunshots were heard.
In cross-examination, Mlyniec confirmed with the detective that none of the six eyewitnesses stated that Franklin was at the crime scene, that anyone who matched Franklin’s description chased Session with a firearm, nor that his unique Monster Energy car was there on Jan. 21, 2021.
After questioning, the prosecution argued that it was reasonable for MPD to issue a BOLO based on the detective’s testimony. They alleged that Franklin had a clear motive and that the deleted messages on his daughter’s phone were suspicious, also warranting a BOLO.
In response, Mlyniec claimed that there was only “a prior beef,” and “a potential motive against the constellation of all these witnesses,” thus making the BOLO issuance unreasonable.
If the basis for issuing a BOLO is “having beef with someone else,” Mlyniec said, “we would see a lot more people getting rounded up.”
After hearing both sides argue on the motion, Judge Edelman noted that he needed time to go through his notes before making a ruling. “This isn’t particularly strong evidence that he committed the shooting. But it doesn’t have to be,” he responded.
Judge Edelman said he will issue an update on his ruling at the next motion hearing scheduled for Aug. 6.
