Pretrial motions arguments commenced on Feb. 18 before DC Superior Court Judge Errol Arthur regarding the suppression of tangible evidence and statements made by a defendant in a shooting case.
Dupre Jones, 26, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, second-degree cruelty to children, unlawful possession of a firearm with a prior conviction, and unlawful discharge of a firearm for his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting on the 4500 block of First Street, SW, on Oct. 11, 2024. No injuries were reported.
Defense attorney Adgie O’Bryant filed motions to suppress tangible, or physical, evidence and statements made by Jones on the grounds that he was illegally stopped, searched, and arrested.
The prosecution called on the officer from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) that detained Jones on the night of the incident to testify.
According to the officer, he received the ShotSpotter notification of gunfire, began driving towards the scene, and received another message from dispatch identifying the shooter as a Black male with a white shirt and blue pants.
The officer stated he saw a male, later identified as Jones, that fit the description at a bus stop near the location of the shooting. The officer claimed ones was tugging at his waistband.
According to the officer, the description of the shooter, the proximity of Jones to where the shots were fired, and the tugging of the waistband were the “totality of circumstances” he used to make the call to stop Jones. They ended up allegedly finding a gun wedged in his pant leg, not in his waistband.
O’Bryant argued that the circumstances did not warrant probable cause to stop Jones. He stressed that tugging at a waistband is not illegal and does not imply suspicion. He also noted the aggression of the stop, insisting the officer jumped out of the car, grabbed Jones’ arm, and pressed him against the fence.
O’Bryant argued that is the approach for when someone is considered “armed and dangerous,” which was all just an assumption. He tried to undermine what the officer thought was probable cause to just a “hunch” that Jones was the shooter.
Additionally, O’Bryant questioned why Jones’s was physically restrained and not that he was not free to leave, which classifies as a seizing of the defendant. At no point did any of the officers present inform Jones of his rights, according to O’Bryant.
During the interaction, Jones allegedly volunteered to get a firearm out of his pant leg. O’Bryant insisted that the statement, which the prosecution intends to use in trial, should not be admissible because Jones had not yet been Mirandized, or read his rights, and did not understand the statement could be used against him.
Due to time constraints, parties were unable to conclude their motions arguments
Parties are slated to reconvene Feb. 28.
