1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

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

 22-14048-CR-CANNON/MAYNARD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DUSTIN SINGLETON,

Defendant.

________________________________/

DEFENDANT DUSTIN SINGLETON’S MOTION TO REOPEN EVIDENTIARY

HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

Defendant, DUSTIN SINGLETON, [“Mr. Singleton”], by and through the undersigned 

counsel and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Rule 16, Fed. R. Crim. P., Rule 88.9, S.D. Fla. L.R.,

the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and this Court’s discretionary authority,

respectfully moves the Court for its Order reopening the evidentiary hearing on his Motion to 

Suppress Evidence. In support hereof, Mr. Singleton asserts:

BACKGROUND

On April 29, 2022 Martin County Sheriff’s Office detectives (Garrett Lott and Tyler 

Ludlow) conducted a traffic stop in Martin County of Mr. Singleton’s vehicle for an alleged 

window tint violation. Based on a purported plain view of a pair of brass knuckles on the center 

console of the vehicle, an alleged statement by Mr. Singleton that there was a large knife on the 

right rear passenger floorboard belonging to a person who asked him to etch it1, and an 

unverified NCIC “hit” out of Connecticut, Mr. Singleton was requested to exit the vehicle for a 

warrantless protective search for weapons pursuant to Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 

S.Ct. 3469 (1983). Both Detectives Ludlow and Lott took photographs with their personal cell 

phones of evidence at the scene as well as evidence later displayed at the Martin County 

Sheriff’s Office. Although Detective Ludlow provided one or two of the photographs he took to 

 

1 Mr. Singleton is a self-employed tattoo artist.

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 170 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2023 Page 1 of 7
2

Lott and allegedly provided all of these photographs as the result of a public records request the 

week before the suppression hearing, defense counsel only received in discovery from Ludlow’s 

personal cell phone the one or two photographs Ludlow had provided to Lott and was not aware 

that there were any more photographs of the evidence in this case.

After this Court held a two-day, eleven hours plus evidentiary hearing on Mr. Singleton’s 

motion to suppress evidence, Detective Ludlow admitted that he had evidentiary photographs on 

his personal cell phone that had not been provided to defense counsel. These photographs, in 

whole or in part, are materially relevant to the key issues in Mr. Singleton’s suppression motion

and part of his defense theory and they were not available for review and analysis prior to the

filing of Mr. Singleton’s Motion To Suppress Evidence With Memorandum of Law filed 

December 20, 2022, his Reply To United States’ Response To Defendant’s Motion to Suppress 

Evidence filed January 17, 2023, or even as late as the suppression hearing on January 23 and 24, 

2023. As a result, this photographic evidence was not available for the timely preparation of Mr. 

Singleton’s defense in this case. 

Mr. Singleton filed Defendant Dustin Singleton’s Motion To Compel Discovery; To 

Request Forensic Extraction And Analysis Of Photographs Taken By MCSO Law Enforcement 

Detectives Garrett Lott And Tyler Ludlow On Their Personal Cell Phones Of Evidence In This 

Case; And To Have This Court Review All Photographs In Camera And Determine Which Are 

Relevant To The Investigation And This Cause (“Motion to Compel Discovery”). The 

Government filed a response agreeing that Mr. Singleton was entitled to the photographs but 

objecting to an independent forensic examination of Ludlow’s and Lott’s personal cell phones. 

Mr. Singleton filed his reply. As part of its response, the Government mentioned that it was 

obtaining Cellebrite reports for these phones. Without consulting with defense counsel or 

contacting this Court, the Government had a detective with Martin County Sheriff’s Office, 

Detective Killough, perform Cellebrite extractions on Ludlow’s and Lott’s personal cell phones. 

This Court rendered a paperless order on or about January 31, 2023 requiring the 

Government to file a supplemental response addressing Cellebrite reports in general, explaining

how they relate to the issues surrounding the late-disclosed photographs, and establishing a 

timeline for each photograph. Defense counsel received the Lott Cellebrite report from the 

Government after hours on January 30, 2023. Defense counsel received the Ludlow Cellebrite 

report from the Government mid-afternoon on February 2, 2023.

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 170 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2023 Page 2 of 7
3

By paperless order dated February 2, 2023, this Court ordered a limited-in-scope

evidentiary hearing set for February 3, 2023 for the sole purpose of a credibility determination of 

Detective Ludlow’s testimony and the circumstances surrounding the late discovery of the

evidentiary photographs on his personal cell phone. On February 13, 2023 this Court rendered 

its Report and Recommendations on Defendant’s Motion to Compel recommending that Mr. 

Singleton’s motion be denied to which Mr. Singleton timely filed his objections on February 17, 

2023. On February 27, 2023, the district court rendered its Order Adopting Report and 

Recommendation thereby denying Mr. Singleton’s Motion to Compel. 

Mr. Singleton’s subsequent Amended Motion to Reopen the Evidentiary Hearing on the 

Motion to Compel Discovery was denied on February 28, 2023. On the same day, the Court 

granted Mr. Singleton’s Motion for Clarification of Court Orders and clarified that Mr. Singleton 

“may move to reopen the suppression hearing if deemed necessary to address the late-disclosed 

photographs and all related reports – including the Cellebrite reports – as they pertain to the

overall defense theory of the case.”

The matter which is now before this Court is Mr. Singleton’s motion to reopen the 

evidentiary hearing on his Motion to Suppress Evidence to take additional testimony and 

evidence regarding the late-provided photographs and the Cellebrite extractions and reports.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 1. On February 28, 2023, the Court rendered simultaneous paperless Orders in Case 

No. 22-14054-CR-Cannon/Maynard and Case No. 22-14048-CR-Cannon/Maynard.

2. The first paperless Order denied Amended Motion to Reopen Evidentiary 

Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery [Exh. “A”, Paperless Order Denying Defendant’s 

Amended Motion to Reopen Evidentiary Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery, 

02/28/2023]. 

3. The second Order granted Defendant’s Motion for Clarification of Court Orders. 

[Exh. “B”, Paperless Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Clarification of Court 

Orders, 02/28/2023]. 

4. The Court clarified in these orders that Mr. Singleton “may move to reopen the 

suppression hearing if deemed necessary to address the late-disclosed photographs and all related 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 170 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2023 Page 3 of 7
4

reports – including the Cellebrite reports – as they pertain to the overall defense theory of the 

case.” [Exh. “A”; “B”, Paperless Orders, 02/28/2023].

5. Defense digital forensic cell phone expert, Mr. Richard D. Connor, Jr., has 

reviewed the MCSO Cellebrite Extraction Reports for the personal cell phones of Detectives Lott 

and Ludlow and executed his Affidavit thereon. [Composite Exh. “C”, Mr. Connor’s 

Affidavit, CV, and the MCSO Cellebrite Extraction Reports for Detectives Lott and 

Ludlow].

ARGUMENT INCORPORATING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

THIS COURT SHOULD REOPEN THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

ON MR. SINGLETON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

I. The Magistrate Judge has the Jurisdiction and the Discretionary Authority to 

Reopen the Evidentiary Hearing on Mr. Singleton’s Motion to Suppress Evidence.

The Magistrate Judge has the jurisdiction and the discretionary authority to reopen a 

pretrial evidentiary hearing to take and to consider additional evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 636; United 

States v. Wright, Case No. CR419-149, 2022 WL 2820111 *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2022)(a 

magistrate judge may “receive further evidence” regarding a suppression motion before a district 

judge’s final disposition of the motion “without any special justification.”). The Wright court 

relied on United States v. Hayden, 759 F.3d 842, 846 (8th Cir. 2014) which reasoned that this is 

so because the district court has discretion to receive new evidence under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

without any special justification while conducting de novo review of a magistrate judge’s report 

and recommendation, [citation omitted]; “we think it follows a fortiori that a magistrate judge 

likewise may receive new evidence before presenting a final report and recommendation to the 

district court.” 

In a different context involving an award of attorneys’ fees following two contempt 

orders, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that if any material facts regarding the 

amount of services rendered are disputed, then the magistrate judge must hold an evidentiary 

hearing in order to receive additional evidence related to the disputed matter. In re Holywell 

Corp., 967 F.2d 568 (11th Cir. 1982). In Holywell, the district court correctly ordered the 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 170 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2023 Page 4 of 7
5

appellants to pay the costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees arising from the two contempt orders. 

In an April 30, 1990 order, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for the 

calculation of the costs and attorneys’ fees to be awarded. In re Holywell, 967 F.2d at 570. On 

September 22, 1990, the magistrate judge submitted his report and recommendation and the 

district court approved the magistrate judge’s determination of fees and costs. Id. The appellants

argued: (1) that the district court failed to review properly the attorneys’ fees awards; (2) the 

magistrate judge erred by not taking additional testimony and/or evidence in an evidentiary 

hearing following their objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation; and (3)

the magistrate judge erred by not making explicit findings on each of the factors listed in 

Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974). In re Holywell, 967 

F.2d at 570-71. Although the first and third arguments were without merit, the Eleventh Circuit 

did focus on the issue of the magistrate judge not taking additional testimony and/or evidence in 

another evidentiary hearing. In re Holywell, 967 F.2d at 571. Although the Eleventh Circuit 

stated that there is no need to hold an evidentiary hearing if there is a dispute of opinions on 

matters as to which the courts possess expertise, that “it cannot be gainsaid that if any material 

facts regarding the amount of services rendered are disputed, then the magistrate judge must hold 

an evidentiary hearing in order to receive additional evidence related to the disputed matter.” Id. 

(citation omitted). After a careful review, the Eleventh Circuit held that in the circumstances of 

this particular case on attorneys’ fees and costs, additional hearings were not necessary as the 

resolution of issues regarding hourly rates and total hours billed are generally within the trial 

court’s discretion. Id. Trial courts possess particular expertise when it comes to reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs. Not so for cell phone forensics and Cellebrite reports.

II. Mr. Singleton’s Motion to Reopen the Suppression Hearing is Timely. 

Mr. Singleton is bringing this motion timely and with due diligence. Neither this Court 

nor Mr. Singleton knew with any meaningful advance warning that the Government would elect 

to have a MCSO detective, Detective Killough, run Cellebrite extractions on the personal cell 

phones of Ludlow and Lott. In fact, this Court was forced to enter a paperless order as late as 

January 31, 2023 in order to have the Government give some explanation of Cellebrite reports in 

general and how they relate to Ludlow’s late-provided photographs. This is not a matter where 

Mr. Singleton had the Cellebrite reports at the time of the two-day suppression hearing and failed 

to raise the issue. Mr. Singleton has had no other opportunity to cross-examine the MCSO

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 170 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2023 Page 5 of 7
6

detectives in regard to the late-provided photographs and reports, including Cellebrite reports, 

due to the limited scope of the February 3, 2023 evidentiary hearing that was confined to a 

determination of Detective Ludlow’s credibility.

This Court should also consider the posture of this case which is pre-trial as well as prereport and recommendation on Mr. Singleton’s motion to suppress evidence. The restrictions

and limitations on reopening suppression hearings after orders adopting reports and 

recommendations or after trial do not apply in this case.

III. The Additional Evidence to be Taken is Expected to Affect This Court’s View of 

 the MCSO Cellebrite Reports.

No affidavit or detailed explanation of the method used in performing the MCSO 

Cellebrite extractions accompanied the supplemental response by the Government. There are 

different methods of extraction obtaining varying levels of information: logical, file system, and 

physical. This Court should be able to hear from the Government exactly what method was used 

and what level of information could be obtained from it before determining that the MCSO 

Cellebrite extractions and reports are accurate or that they reflect what the Government purports 

they show. Mr. Singleton would like an opportunity not only to confront the MCSO detective 

who performed these Cellebrite extractions in cross examination but also to have his own cell 

phone expert review these MCSO Cellebrite extraction reports and be able to offer an expert

opinion to this Court on the accuracy of these reports and whether they conclusively show what 

they purport to show. 

IV. The Dispute Involves a Material Matter Requiring Additional Evidence.

Detective Ludlow based his determination of probable cause to search Mr. Singleton’s 

entire vehicle over his alleged discovery of an unlabeled jar of pills supposedly next to a large 

knife on the right rear floorboards of Mr. Singleton’s vehicle. Although he was taking 

photographs with his personal cell phone of the evidence, he significantly failed to take a 

photograph of the jar of pills as it was first seen next to the large knife in violation of his own 

department’s standard operating procedure. There are no photographs of the knife in or on the 

vehicle at the scene. The much-delayed provision of a single photograph of the jar of pills in the 

vehicle is suspicious for a number of reasons including that there is no large knife to be seen and 

the photograph appears to have been staged. Since this dispute involves a material discovery

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 170 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2023 Page 6 of 7
7

matter relevant to Mr. Singleton’s defense, it is incumbent upon this Court to reopen the 

evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress evidence so that this Court can consider additional 

testimony about the late-disclosed photographs as well as evidence about the Cellebrite 

extractions before making its final report and recommendation.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, DUSTIN SINGLETON, by and through his counsel, 

respectfully moves this Court to enter its Order reopening the evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s 

Motion to Suppress Evidence.

RULE 88.9 CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that counsel have conferred in a good faith effort to resolve the 

issues raised in this motion. The United States consents to a limited reopening of the 

suppression hearing for the sole purpose of questioning Detective Ludlow about the photographs 

that were disclosed. Otherwise, the United States objects to other testimony outside that scope. 

The parties do not agree on the scope of the reopening of the suppression hearing.

 /s/ Edward D. Reagan 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 3, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was filed 

electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing 

system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. All other parties will be served by 

regular U.S. mail.

EDWARD D. REAGAN, P.A.

Attorney for Defendant

 658 W. Indiantown Road

 Suite 209

 Jupiter, FL 33458

 Telephone: (561) 832-7443

BY: /s/ EDWARD D. REAGAN, ESQ.

EDWARD D. REAGAN, ESQ.

 FLORIDA BAR NO: 0028215

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 170 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2023 Page 7 of 7