After accusations of illegal police tracking device, yes he gave up the Oakland crime case

Oakland – a defense lawyer officially accused the Oakland police of illegally placed a tracking device on a man’s car and supervised him without a simple cause, and prosecutors responded with the judicial records that justify the movement.

A judge was to rule on the merits, but the court’s decision will never come. On the day of the hearing, the prosecutors came to court and rejected the charges of murder against a man in Oakland, preventing the court from addressing the legality of the tracking device.

The case was rejected at the end of last year but was not reported above.

The case against Andre Stevenson Jr., 21 years old, has already made a preliminary hearing until the prosecutors threw it. Stevenson had been charged with killing Raymond Adanandus, 25 years old, during a driving shooting where dozens of fires were pulled. Much of the case was based on the tracking device, which the Oakland police placed on a vehicle involved a few weeks earlier, the judicial documents shows.

The tracking device and its justification are enveloped in mystery. The police swore statements in this regard were submitted in the seal, and now Stevenson’s lawyer has been allowed to see all the details. When the Defense Lawyer, Miki Tal, raised the issue in court, a judge called a private hearing, in the Chamber, examined the mandate and confirmed it, the registrations shows.

But when Tal raised the problem a second time, the prosecutors finally rejected the case.

Adanandus was shot and killed on May 27, 2024 while leading the MacArthur Boulevard in Oakland; After he was shot, he continued to lead in San Leandro, where he collapsed. When the Oakland police started investigating, they realized that only three days earlier they placed a tracking device on Stevenson’s Nissan, proving that it was in the vicinity of the shot with Drive-by, according to the court documents.

Stevenson was arrested and charged, and a judge confirmed the case at a preliminary hearing last year. But then Tal moved to throw the tracking device, after finding out what police had used to justify his placement: they suspected that Stevenson was involved in a robbery, which took place almost six months earlier, in December 2023.

In a motion deposited after hearing the room, Tal claimed that the “outdated” justification violated Stevenson’s constitutional rights and that “no reasonable officer” would have used the robbery probe to place the device.

“The hiatus of almost six months between the alleged robbery and the search proves a probable lack of cause to look for additional factors, of which none has been articulated,” wrote in a file in court. “The claim that any such evidence would be recovered is not accepted by any specific and completely vague facts.”

In their response, the prosecutors simply based on the fact that the mandate justifying the tracking device was still under seal, speculating that, while the robbery was for months, there could have been additional justifications that only the police and the judge are private. They noted that the police have actively supervised Stevenson around the time, which indicates that there is more in the investigation than just a one -month old robbery.

On October 31, a judge was established to rule on the defense motion and yes. Instead, prosecutors raised the hearing, announcing that the case against Stevenson was thrown. He was closed in the last three months, during which his mother died, according to judicial documents.

The court’s journal lists a single sentence to explain the dismissal. It was done “in the interest of justice”.