1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-14048-CR-CANNON/MAYNARD

CASE NO. 22-14054-CR-CANNON/MAYNARD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

DUSTIN SINGLETON,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION TO REOPEN EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

I previously held an eleven-hour evidentiary hearing on the Defendant’s Motion to 

Suppress on January 23, 2023 and January 24, 2023. DE 132, 142 [048]; DE 78 [054].

1 During 

that evidentiary hearing, several witnesses testified, including Martin County Sheriff’s Office 

(“MCSO”) Sergeant Garrett Lott and Detective Tyler Ludlow. After the hearing, Detective Ludlow 

notified the Government that he had additional relevant photographs stored on his personal 

cellphone that had not been disclosed to the defense (“Ludlow’s late-disclosed photographs”). The 

Government notified defense counsel and the Court of this development. Defense counsel filed a 

motion to compel (1) all photographs taken on the personal cellphones of Detective Ludlow and 

Sergeant Lott and (2) the officers’ personal cellphones for forensic examination and in camera

inspection. The Government responded by providing the previously undisclosed photographs 

from Ludlow’s cellphone and Cellebrite extraction reports from both officers’ cellphones. On 

1 This same Motion and all related briefing is filed in two separately pending but related cases. For ease of reference, 

citations to U.S. v. Shaw et al., Case No. 22-14048-Cr-Cannon/Maynard, will be “DE __ [048],” while citations to 

U.S. v. Singleton. Case No. 22-14054-Cr-Cannon/Maynard, will be “DE __ [054].”

Case 2:22-cr-14054-AMC Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 1 of 6
2

February 13, 2023, I issued a Report and Recommendation (“Initial Report”) recommending that 

the Defendant’s motion to compel photographs be denied as moot and the motion to compel 

forensic examination of the officers’ phones be denied. DE 152 [048]; DE 87 [054]. On February 

21, 2023 and February 27, 2023, presiding U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon adopted the 

report and recommendation. DE 171 [048]; DE 97 [054].

On March 17, 2023, I issued a Supplemental Report and Recommendation advising the 

District Judge of two factual errors in the Initial Report that had come to my attention. DE 188 

[048]; DE 115 [054]. Specifically, after the Initial Report issued and was adopted, the Government 

learned that Sergeant Lott also had photographs on his cellphone that had not been disclosed to the 

defense prior to the suppression hearing (“Lott’s late-disclosed photographs”). Thus, the Initial 

Report incorrectly stated that there was no issue of undisclosed photographs from Sergeant Lott’s 

phone. The Initial Report also incorrectly stated that the Cellebrite reports showed no photographs 

had been deleted from either officers’ cellphone. The Supplemental Report and Recommendation 

explained why these errors should not change the outcome on Defendant’s Motion to Compel. 

The Supplemental Report and Recommendation is awaiting determination by the District Judge.

Now pending before me is Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Evidentiary Hearing on his 

Motion to Suppress. DE 171 [048]; DE 104 [054]. In response, the Government “agrees that the 

Court has the authority to reopen the suppression hearing in this matter and has no objection to the 

Court reopening the suppression hearing.” DE 173 [048]; DE 106 [054]. However, the parties 

disagree on the proper scope of the hearing. Presiding U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon has 

referred this Motion to me for appropriate disposition. DE 177 [048]. 

I held a status conference on March 6, 2023, at which time I set a continued evidentiary 

hearing on Defendant’s pending motion to suppress for April 4, 2023, at 10:00 A.M. DE 183 at 

Case 2:22-cr-14054-AMC Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 2 of 6
3

27 [048]; DE 113 at 27 [054]. The purpose of this Order is to establish the general scope of this 

upcoming hearing.2 I wish to make clear, however, that I will entertain any proper objections as 

they arise in context at the hearing. 

As discussed at the status conference before me on March 6, 2023, there are four general

areas of proposed examination at the upcoming evidentiary hearing. First, Defendant seeks the 

opportunity to cross-examine Detective Ludlow about hislate-disclosed photographs. At the status 

conference, the Government agreed that Defendant is entitled to cross-examine Ludlow about 

these photographs and how they pertain to the motion to suppress. Thus, I will allow such crossexamination at the April 4, 2023 evidentiary hearing. 

Second, Defendant seeks to cross-examine Sergeant Lott about (1) Lott’s receipt and 

handling of Ludlow’s late-disclosed photographs; (2) Lott’s late-disclosed photographs; and (3) 

how the foregoing relate to the motion to suppress. DE 183 at 6 [048]; DE 113 at 6 [054]. As to 

this category, the Government agrees only to cross-examination of Lott about Ludlow’s latedisclosed photographs. DE 183 at 14-15 [048]; DE 113 at 14-15 [054]. The Government does not 

believe Lott should be questioned about his own late-disclosed photographs because those 

photographs depict case-related evidence as it was documented after the officers returned to the 

sheriff’s office, not as it was found at the scene of the traffic stop. The Government questions the 

relevance of photographs documenting the evidence at the sheriff’s office to Defendant’s motion 

to suppress. Id. 

I disagree with the Government that Lott’s cross-examination should be limited to 

questions about photographs taken at the scene of the traffic stop. First, any distinction between 

photographs taken at the scene and those taken at the sheriff’s office is a dubious one for purposes 

2

I assume reader familiarity with the background of this case as set forth in the parties’ briefing and in a prior Report 

of mine that outlines the general facts, charges, and relevant procedural history. DE 152 [048]; DE 87 [054].

Case 2:22-cr-14054-AMC Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 3 of 6
4

of the motion to suppress. Not all of the photographs taken at the scene are of the evidence as 

officers initially found it. Several of the photographs taken at the scene are of officers documenting 

the evidence itself and do not necessarily depict the evidence as it was originally found in the 

Defendant’s vehicle. Second, all photographs of evidence seized in this case, whether depicting 

evidence as it was initially found or subsequently documented, are potentially relevant to 

Defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant has a right to consider all the photographs and 

determine for himself what suppression arguments he has based on the evidence in the case. It is 

not for the Government to decide what arguments the Defendant has based on the photographs; 

that decision is for the Defendant and his counsel. Thus, I will not limit defense counsel’s ability 

to inquire about any photograph relevant to this case regardless of when and where the photograph 

was taken. Further, how the officers handled the photographs after taking them is relevant to the

officers’ credibility regarding their accuracy in memorializing what happened during their 

investigation. The Government asks this Court to rely on the officers’ testimony and memory of 

what happened during a traffic stop that occurred almost one year ago. Evidence about the 

carefulness with which they conducted their investigation and their meticulousness in collecting, 

preserving, and disclosing relevant evidence may be helpful to assessing the officers’ credibility 

about what happened that night. Credibility is a factor I must consider in ruling on the motion to 

suppress. See United States v. Menendez, No. 99-755-CR, 2000 WL 36733765, at *1 (S.D. Fla. 

Oct. 2, 2000) (“Rulings on motions to suppress involve mixed question of law and fact . . . . [One]

issue of fact . . . [is] the credibility of the witnesses.”). Thus, I will allow Defendant to crossexamine both officers about their handling of the evidence, including photographs.

Third, Defendant seeks to examine MCSO Detective Matthew Killough to establish that 

the “deleted” column on the Cellebrite reports do not provide whether photographs were deleted 

Case 2:22-cr-14054-AMC Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 4 of 6
5

from the cellphones of Lott or Ludlow. DE 183 at 3-4 [048]; DE 113 at 3-4 [054]. At the status 

conference, the Government agreed “that neither one of those Cellebrite reports can tell you 

definitively whether any photographs were deleted from either Sergeant Lott’s or Detective 

Ludlow’s cellphones.” DE 183 at 20 [048]; DE 113 at 20 [054]. Because the parties have 

stipulated to this fact and I have filed a supplemental report and recommendation revising my prior 

determination regarding the Cellebrite reports, there is no need for any testimony on this subject 

matter. 

Fourth and finally, Defendant seeks to examine cellphone expert, Richard D. Connor, Jr., 

to establish that the Cellebrite reports do not provide whether any photographs were deleted from 

the cellphones of Lott or Ludlow. DE 183 at 10 [048]; DE 113 at 10 [054]. At the status 

conference, the Government agreed with Mr. Connor’s conclusion3that “‘[i]t is not possible to tell 

if either phone took a picture which was then deleted from the Cellebrite reports’” and “‘[t]he 

reports contain existing pictures, not deleted pictures.’” DE 183 at 20-21 [048]; DE 113 at 20-21

[054]. Thus, because the parties have agreed on Mr. Connor’s conclusion regarding the Cellebrite 

reports not being able to identify whether photographs were deleted, there is no need for any 

testimony on this topic. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Evidentiary 

Hearing on his Motion to Suppress, DE 171 [048]; DE 104 [054], is GRANTED consistent with 

the terms of this Order.

3 As an exhibit to the Motion to Reopen Evidentiary Hearing, Defendant attached an affidavit executed by Mr. Connor. 

DE 171-1 at 8-9 [048]; DE 104-1 at 8-9 [054]. In relevant part, Mr. Connor averred that “‘[it] is not possible to tell if 

either phone took a picture which was then deleted from the Cellebrite reports. The reports contain existing pictures, 

not deleted pictures.’” DE 171-1 at 8 [048]; DE 104-1 at 8 [054]. 

Case 2:22-cr-14054-AMC Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 5 of 6
6

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 21st day of March, 

2023.

_______________________________

 SHANIEK MILLS MAYNARD

 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cr-14054-AMC Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2023 Page 6 of 6