DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt denied a motion to suppress recorded statements in a firearms case on Feb. 13, ruling the defendant’s rights were not violated during a police interview.
Gerald Day, 44, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon for his alleged involvement in an Oct. 29, 2023 shooting near First Street, SW and Carrollsburg Place, SW. According to court documents, Day allegedly brandished a firearm during a confrontation outside of a Halloween party, and a co-defendant later fired multiple shots, striking a victim in the leg.
Steven Polin, Day’s defense attorney, moved to suppress an audio recording of statements Day made to detectives at his workplace following the incident. The ruling followed a Feb. 12 motions hearing where the court heard testimony and arguments from both sides about whether the interview was coerced and whether constitutional protections applied.
Polin argued the statements should be excluded because Day was wrongly compelled to speak due to his position as a Howard University Special Police Officer. He said Special Police Officers are licensed through the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and granted police authority by District statute, suggesting that Day could qualify for protections under Garrity v. New Jersey, which bars the government from forcing public employees to choose between self-incrimination and job loss.
Polin also argued that Day’s commander acted as an agent of the state by facilitating the interview. He said the commander brought Day into a secured radio room where detectives were waiting and that, within a police chain of command, the directive carried the weight of an order. According to Polin, the commander’s involvement effectively assisted law enforcement in obtaining statements and created a coercive workplace environment.
Prosecutors argued the interview was voluntary and non-custodial. They maintained that Howard University officers are privately employed and that telling an employee detectives wished to speak with them was no different than a private employer relaying such a request.
Prosecutors emphasized that Day was told at the start of the recorded interview that he was free to leave, was not being restrained, and later agreed to continue speaking with detectives at the police station.
Judge Brandt rejected the defense’s arguments, finding that Howard University officers are privately employed and that the District statute granting them limited police authority does not convert them into public employees for Garrity purposes.
She also found no evidence the commander pressured or threatened Day or coordinated with law enforcement in a coercive manner.
With the motion denied, the recorded interview will be admitted at trial.
The parties are scheduled to return for jury selection on Feb. 17.
