After the accusations of illegal police tracking device, it dropped the case of murder of Oakland

Oakland – A defense lawyer formally accused Oakland Police of illegally placing a tracking device in a man’s car and monitored without just cause, and prosecutors had responded with judicial presentations that justify the moving.

A judge was ready to govern the merits, but the court’s decision would never come. On the day of the hearing, the prosecutors arrived at the Court and dismissed the murder charges against an Oakland man, preventing the court from addressing the legality of the monitoring device completely.

The case was dismissed at the end of last year, but has not been previously informed.

The case against Andre Stevenson Jr., 21, had already passed a preliminary hearing at the time the prosecutors expelled him. Stevenson had been accused of murder Raymond Adanandus, 25, during a shooting where dozens of shots were shot. A large part of the case was based on the tracking device, which according to the reports, the Oakland police had placed in a vehicle involved weeks before, as shown in the judicial records.

The monitoring device and its justification are wrapped in mystery. The sworn statements of the police on the matter were presented under Seal, and Stevenson’s lawyer was not even allowed to see all the details. When the defense lawyer, Miki Tal, raised the issue in the Court, a judge convened a private hearing in the Chamber, reviewed the order and confirmed it, according to the records.

But when he raised the issue for the second time, prosecutors finally dismissed the case.

Adanandus was shot dead on May 27, 2024 while driving at MacArthur Boulevard in Oakland; After receiving a shot, he continued leading to San Leandro, where he crashed. When Oakland police began investigating, they realized that only three days before had placed a tracking device in Nissan de Stevenson, which shows that it was close to driving shooting, according to judicial presentations.

Stevenson was arrested and accused, and a judge confirmed the case at a preliminary hearing last year. But then such moved to launch the tracking device, after finally learning what the police had used to justify the placement: they suspected that Stevenson was involved in a robbery, which had occurred almost six months before, in December 2023.

In a motion presented after the audience in the Chamber, he argued that the “obsolete” justification violated Stevenson’s constitutional rights and that “no reasonable officer” would have used the robbery investigation to place the device.

“The parenthesis of almost six months between the alleged robbery and the search shows a lack of probable cause to seek additional factors in absence, none of which has been articulated,” such in a judicial presentation wrote. “The statement that such evidence would recover is not supported by any specific and completely vague fact.”

In his response, prosecutors simply were based on the fact that the order of the monitoring device was still under seal, speculating that, although the theft had months, there could be additional justifications that only the police and the judge are aware. They pointed out that the police were actively monitoring Stevenson at the time of homicide, indicating that there was more in the investigation than simply a month of month.

On October 31, a judge ruled on the defense motion and the response of Da. Instead, prosecutors changed the hearing, announcing that the case against Stevenson was being released. He had been imprisoned during the last three months, during which his mother had died, according to judicial records.

The Court Registry lists only one sentence to explain the dismissal. It became “in the interest of justice.”

Originally published: March 17, 2025 at 9:32 am pdt