YoungBoy Never Broke Again secured a win in his ongoing federal gun case.
According to legal documents obtained by XXL magazine, a U.S. district judge has granted YoungBoy’s request to suppress video evidence that was seized during his 2020 arrest. Attorneys for the 22-year-old rapper—legal name Kentrell Gaulden—argue the footage was inadmissible in court because the camera was seized and searched without probable cause.
The camera in questioned reportedly contained an SD card that included images and footage of YoungBoy possessing a firearm. The footage was taken in an abandoned Baton Rouge lot, where YoungBoy and his team were allegedly brandishing weapons for a video shoot. Louisiana police arrived at the scene shortly after residents alerted authorities, and ultimately confiscated more than a dozen guns, nearly $80,000 in cash, and drugs. YoungBoy and 15 others were subsequently arrested on drug- and weapons-related charges.
Among those arrested was Marvin Ramsey, a cameraman who was allegedly found in possession of a firearm and a Sony digital camera, which contained the aforementioned SD card. YoungBoy’s attorneys say “the firearms and SD card media are fruits of the illegal detentions of ‘Gaulden, Ramsey, and [the other people arrested] on September 28, 2020.’ The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine extends the rule to excuse evidence admissible in court if it was illegally obtained.”
Shelly Dick, the chief U.S. District Judge in Baton Rouge, posed the following question when deciding whether to suppress the video evidence: “When a camera is found at the scene of a suspected possession crime, but it is unknown which of several suspects possessed the contraband, is there probable cause to search the camera for photographic evidence of who possessed the contraband?” Dick wrote in a 48-page ruling, as reported by the Advocate. “In this case, the question is narrowed because the … affidavit contains nothing to indicate that the camera contained evidence of crimes. The mere fact that a camera was recovered at the scene of an arrest does not generate a ‘substantial probability’ that evidence of a crime will be on that camera. Additionally, without an allegation that the camera was in use when the alleged crimes occurred, the assertion that the camera contained evidence is purely speculative.”
Dick went on to say that just because an arrestee is found with a device that is capable of capturing images does not “generate probable cause to search that device.” If that was the case, authorities could potentially seize and search any cellphone that was found at the scene of an arrest.
Prosecutors must now try to prove YoungBoy was in possession of a firearm without the video evidence.
