WASHTENAW COUNTY, Mich. – A judge called the omissions in the arrest warrant for Sherrone Moore “misleading” and granted the defense team’s request for an evidentiary hearing.
A motion hearing was held before Washtenaw County Judge Cedric Simpson on Tuesday, Feb. 17. Moore’s attorney, Ellen Michaels, argued that omissions in the warrant application warrant a Franks hearing, which is an evidentiary proceeding used to determine whether false statements or reckless omissions were made in securing an arrest warrant.
Here’s what happened during the hearing:
Defense: Key employment context omitted
Michaels argued that the detective failed to inform the magistrate that Moore was the complainant’s boss at the time of several alleged contacts in early December.
According to the defense, the complainant was Moore’s executive assistant and had not taken leave on the workday in question.
Michaels said the complainant acknowledged some of the messages between Moore and the staffer were work-related. The defense attorney didn’t dispute that approximately 12 calls were made, but noted none were answered.
Because the contacts occurred during business hours on a workday — shortly after the university learned its Citrus Bowl opponent — Michaels argued they could have had a legitimate purpose and therefore would not constitute stalking.
She said at the time, Moore had not been told to stop contacting her for employment reasons.
Michaels also challenged statements included in the warrant request that came from the complainant’s civil attorney, arguing they portrayed Moore as having a long history of domestic violence, a claim she said is unsupported by police reports or the complainant’s own statements.
The judge pressed Michaels on whether the issue was false testimony or reckless omission. While he said he could see an argument for reckless disregard, he questioned whether the detective knowingly submitted false information.
Michaels maintained that body camera footage and follow-up interviews conflicted with information relayed by the attorney and that the magistrate was given half of the story.
Judge: ‘I’m very worried about the omission’
Simpson repeatedly questioned why the employment relationship and the nature of communication between a head coach and executive assistant were not clearly presented during the “swear to.”
“One of the things that always comes out is the relationship of the parties,” the judge said, adding that without that context, the magistrate may have viewed the communications solely as part of an escalating pattern of harassment.
By omitting details about the workplace dynamic, Simpson said, the warrant application may have painted a one-sided picture.
“I’m very worried about the omission,” he said, expressing concern that Moore’s due process rights may have been affected.
Prosecutor: Charges stand even with added context
The prosecutor, Kati Rezmierski, first assistant prosecutor for Washtenaw County, argued that even if the court grants the defense request for an evidentiary hearing, there is no clear authority requiring dismissal of the case.
She pointed to allegations about what happened on Dec. 10, after Moore was fired.
“He called her two times after that. She didn’t answer, showed up at her apartment, barged his way in, grabbed the implements that he did. She felt utterly terrorized in that moment,” the prosecution said. “Threatened to kill himself, pointed the implements at her, backed her further into her apartment, eventually left when she got her lawyer on speakerphone, and even after he left, then called her -- as is witnessed on body cam -- called her yet again, and sent her two more texts: ‘I hate you’ and ‘My blood is on your hands.’”
At that point, the prosecutor said, there was no longer an employment relationship, and the alleged conduct independently supports probable cause for stalking.
She acknowledged the employer-employee relationship was not detailed in the warrant but suggested the detective may have assumed it was a known fact.
Possible remedy
Michaels argued that if the court finds probable cause was lacking due to omissions, the proper remedy would be dismissal of the complaint and suppression of evidence obtained after the arrest.
Judge’s decision
When giving his decision, the judge reiterated how important the context of the relationship is in this case, and he doesn’t know why that wasn’t given to the magistrate.
“There’s not one mention of the fact that those calls could have been work-related,” Simpson said, calling the omission “misleading.”
He went further, suggesting the way the information was framed may have been deliberate.
“Frankly, I think that was intentional,” Simpson said. He added that the presentation appeared designed to give the magistrate the impression that Moore had been harassing the complainant for months, followed by “10 to 12 phone calls” and then the events of Dec. 10, when some of the calls may have been work-related.
“I believe that was an intentional misdirection to the court,” he said.
Simpson also said, “It is, in this court’s mind, a glaring omission to leave out or frame this relationship only in one way.”
Simpson stressed that the relationship was not solely personal and that the magistrate should have been given a fuller picture before making a probable cause determination.
Finding that the omissions warranted further scrutiny, Simpson granted the motion for an evidentiary hearing. The proceeding will allow both sides to examine what information investigators had at the time of the warrant request and whether key facts were knowingly or recklessly left out.
The evidentiary hearing has been scheduled for March 2.
Background
Moore was arrested on Dec. 10 after a 911 call reporting a man attacking a woman in a Pittsfield Township apartment.
He was later detained and placed in protective custody by mental health professionals. Moore has been charged with third-degree home invasion, stalking, and breaking and entering.
During his Dec. 12 arraignment, prosecutors said Moore and the staffer had been involved in an intimate relationship “for a number of years.”
Prosecutors said the staff member ended the relationship on Dec. 8, but Moore continued calling and texting her.
Previous coverage: 911 dispatch audio reveals events preceding firing of former Michigan football HC Sherrone Moore
Moore was fired after the staff member reported the matter to the university.
On Dec. 10, Moore allegedly went to the staff member’s apartment, grabbed “several butter knives and a pair of kitchen scissors” from a drawer, and threatened to hurt himself.
He left after the woman threatened to call her lawyer and the police, officials said.
Moore was released on a $25,000 bond and is required to wear a GPS tether, undergo mental health treatment, and have no contact with the victim.