Washington — A federal judge ruled Thursday that police in the nation’s capital illegally confiscated a gun from a man they stopped outside a laundromat, criticizing the officers’ account as unreliable and sharply criticizing Justice Department prosecutors for relying on the testimony of an officer who was involved in the killings. She was discredited by the other judges.
The ruling comes at a time when policing in Washington, D.C., is under an exceptional spotlight, as the city grapples with increasing public scrutiny of officer misconduct and the Trump administration’s directive to increase federal law enforcement resources to the region earlier this year.
US District Judge Ana Reyes’ decision goes beyond the details of the May arrest. She chided prosecutors for putting on the stand an officer whose credibility at least two other judges had questioned. The case raises new questions about how federal authorities vet the officers they rely on — especially as Washington has become a test case for national debates over crime, law enforcement and public trust.
Reyes said she was “extremely disappointed” that prosecutors in U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office decided to seek testimony from Metropolitan Police Department Detective Harvey Hinostroza during the pretrial hearing in their case against Deandre Davis. Reyes said courts cannot tolerate police officers who testify falsely under oath.
“It also undermines public confidence in our judicial system,” Reyes said.
Reyes barred prosecutors from using the seized gun as evidence against Davis, who was arrested on firearms charges after officers approached him outside a laundromat in Washington, D.C., on May 19. The judge said she would consider the defense’s request to dismiss the charges against Davis if Pirro’s office does not drop the case within the next 30 days.
Reyes said she did not believe key parts of Hinostroza’s testimony during the pretrial hearing in Davis’ case.
The judge added: “He has been untruthful about major issues in the past.”
“It is insulting for this judge to find a credibility problem with a police officer when the crime was captured on video exactly as two officers described it,” Pirro said in a statement.
A police department spokesman declined to comment. A letter sent to the union that represents MPD officers was not immediately responded to.
In two previous cases, D.C. Superior Court judges questioned Hinostroza’s testimony about smelling marijuana before making arrests, according to defense attorney Eugene Ohm. Hinostroza said he was not disciplined for his 2017 testimony, but remained under internal affairs investigation for his 2024 testimony. Om said.
In the case before Reyes, Hinostroza testified that he saw Davis standing with two other men and passing a marijuana cigarette.
Ohm, the assistant federal public defender, said the surveillance video contradicted key details of the officers’ testimony about their reasons for approaching the men.
“(Officers) claimed they saw this information from almost a distance. With respect, no one’s eyes were that good,” Ohm wrote.
Hinestroza also testified that he could tell Davis was smoking marijuana based on the smoke from the cigarette.
“This is laughable and defies common sense,” Ohm wrote. “Detective Henestroza did not prevent any reliable testimony about how he developed this new ability to identify different types of smoke by sight, a first for defense attorneys.”
“It is extremely dangerous for (Reyes) to suggest that a convicted felon could reasonably believe he has the right to illegally possess a gun in D.C.,” Pirro said in response to the judge’s remarks.
At the conclusion of Thursday’s hearing, Reyes warned Davis that he should not “overlook the fact that you are breaking the law.”
“I urge you to think long and carefully about what you want to do with this second chance,” the judge said. “You’ll never have that luck again.”