Federal Judge Rules D.C. Police Misconduct Leads to Evidence Exclusion

Sun Nov 23 2025 11:40:44 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

In a significant ruling, a U.S. District Judge criticizes D.C. police practices, declaring a seized firearm inadmissible and questioning officer credibility amid heightened scrutiny of law enforcement.

A federal judge's ruling deemed the seizure of a firearm from a suspect as illegal, criticizing the credibility of the police officer involved and raising concerns regarding the overall reliability of D.C. police practices. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes expressed disappointment at the Justice Department's reliance on an officer with a contested track record, emphasizing the negative implications for public trust in the justice system. The decision reinforces the ongoing discussions about police accountability and credibility, especially as Washington faces increased scrutiny over crime and enforcement.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A significant legal decision was made on Thursday when a federal judge ruled that police in Washington, D.C. unlawfully seized a firearm from a man, blatantly criticizing the reliability of the officers' account and the Justice Department’s reliance on contested police testimony.

This ruling emerges amidst intensified scrutiny of policing practices in the capital, as the city grapples with concerns over officer misconduct and an increase in federal law enforcement presence.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes expressed her disapproval over prosecutors’ decision to call Metropolitan Police Department Investigator Harvy Hinostroza to testify, despite prior judicial questioning of Hinostroza's credibility. This case, concerning Deandre Davis, raises questions about how federal authorities evaluate police officers whose testimonies they use in court.

Reyes stated she was “extremely disappointed” that the U.S. Attorney's office chose to present testimony from an officer previously discredited by other judges. The judge underscored that the court cannot foster an environment where officers provide false testimonies and emphasized the impact such actions have on public trust in the justice system.

By barring the use of the firearm as evidence, Reyes noted that she might consider a motion to dismiss the case entirely if it is not dropped within 30 days.

Concerns about police credibility were amplified when the judge labeled certain aspects of Hinostroza’s testimony as believable, commenting that he had previously shown dishonesty in significant matters, directly undermining the prosecutor's argument.

In response, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro criticized the ruling. She asserted it was troubling that a judge would pinpoint credibility issues with an officer when a crime was clearly recorded on video by multiple officers.

Reyes’ remarks come at an opportune moment, as the discourse surrounding police practices and accountability in Washington, D.C. continues to evolve. As investigations into personal conduct remain a hot topic, the ruling serves as a stark reminder of the need for reliability in law enforcement testimonies, especially in a city facing significant scrutiny.