Thank you for reading Baltimore Witness.
Consider making a donation to help us continue our mission.
By
Liya Osiyemi
- September 8, 2025
Court
|
Daily Stories
|
Non-Fatal Shooting
|
Suspects
|
Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge LaZette Ringgold-Kirksey denied a motion to suppress evidence in the case of defendant Sha’Bria McCleod on Sept. 4, ruling that police acted within their authority when obtaining a search warrant.
McCleod, 25, is charged with four counts each of attempted first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and firearm use in a felony crime of violence for her alleged involvement in a March mass shooting alongside co-defendants Deshawn Gwaltney, 24, and Broderick Young, 22. The incident, which occurred March 29, left four individuals injured on the 400 block of Venable Avenue.
McCleod, who was initially only charged as an accessory after the fact to the shooting, allegedly made several phone calls to Gwaltney’s brother, who is in jail for drug and firearm charges.
A detective with the Baltimore Police Department obtained a warrant to search McCleod’s home for evidence after reviewing those calls, in which he believed she mentioned firearms multiple times.
Defense attorney Matthew Zernhelt argued that detective’s application and affidavit to obtain the warrant showed a “reckless disregard for the truth,” claiming it misrepresented phone calls between McCleod and Gwaltney’s brother. Though the officer wrote that McCleod discussed firearms, he admitted on the stand that the word “gun” was never used.
Instead, he testified, “I believe they were talking about guns.”
Zernhelt pressed the officer on these discrepancies, suggesting he misled the court. The officer said that he interpreted the word “it” to refer to a gun based on both context and his 16 years of experience interpreting jail calls. He claims that people often use coded or nondescript language to hide criminal activity.
The prosecution countered that the affidavit considered more than the jail phone calls, emphasizing timing around the mass shooting.
Judge Ringgold-Kirksey agreed, noting that the warrant was issued not just for handguns, but for any ballistic evidence. She also remarked that a lack of thoroughness does not constitute perjury or recklessness.
The motion to suppress was denied, and the warrant was upheld.