United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: SUPPRESSION MOTIONS
J. Garbis, United States District Judge
Court has before it Defendant Crawford's Motion to
Suppress Statements and Physical Evidence [ECF No. 150],
Defendant Hightower's Motion to Suppress Statements [ECF
No. 162], and the materials submitted relating thereto. The
Court has held a hearing and had the benefit of the arguments
DEFENDANT CRAWFORD [ECF No. 150]
September 23 and October 30, 2013, Defendant Harry Crawford
("Defendant Crawford") voluntarily appeared at
police headquarters and was interviewed by Detectives Hinton
and Gruss ("the Detectives"). The interviews were
recorded (video and audio).
the course of the interview of October 30, 2013, Defendant
Crawford voluntarily provided access to his cellphone. The
police used a device - with consent of Defendant Crawford -to
extract information from the cellphone.
Crawford was not in custody and was not coerced to provide
any statements or access to his cellphone.
hearing, after the completion of testimony, Defendant
Crawford's counsel stated that he wished to withdraw the
suppression motion. However, to avoid any potential future
issues, the Court will rule on the motion.
Court finds that, in regard to the interviews, Defendant
Crawford was not in custody, was not coerced and voluntarily
made statements and provided information from, and access to,
his cellphone. Thus, the motion shall be denied.
DEFENDANT HIGHTOWER [ECF NO. 162]
October 30, 2013, Detective Hinton spoke with Defendant
Hightower by telephone, asking if he would agree to come to
police headquarters for an interview. Defendant Hightower
agreed to do so and made an appointment. But, the next day,
Defendant Hightower called and said he would not be keeping
the appointment, saying that he had spoken with Defendant
Crawford and that Defendant Crawford had advised him to get
an attorney. He further stated that he had spoken with an
attorney and was advised to come for an interview only
accompanied by counsel. However, Defendant Hightower
expressed his willingness to speak with the police because he
had done nothing wrong. Detective Hinton advised Defendant
Hightower to have the attorney contact him.
November 4, 2013, Defendant Hightower called Detective Hinton
saying that he thought that the Detectives were following
was no further contact from Defendant Hightower or his
attorney. Although the Detectives knew the attorney's
name they made no effort to contact him.
Detectives decided, on November 21, 2013, to confront
Defendant Hightower without advance warning to try to see if
he would speak with them without an attorney present.
evening, the Detectives proceeded to the parking lot of an
apartment building associated with Defendant Hightower and
waited for him to arrive. About 8 PM Defendant Hightower
arrived, driving a truck with passengers, a female and one or
two children. The officers confronted Defendant Hightower,
showing police IDs and ...