On February 7, 2025, members of the Roanoke Police Department in Virginia and an ATF task force conducted surveillance of Michael Antonio David, Jr. for approximately two hours before initiating a traffic stop. A K-9 subsequently alerted on the vehicle, and officers recovered two firearms from the center console. David was ultimately charged in federal court with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
David served discovery requests seeking materials required under Brady, Giglio, Rule 16, and the Jencks Act. Two months later, he specifically requested communications among the officers involved in the surveillance, traffic stop, and vehicle search. The Government responded that no such communications existed and produced police reports, body-worn camera footage, and dash-camera recordings instead.
That representation quickly became a problem.
Body-worn camera footage revealed that officers were sending text messages during the stop. As defense counsel continued pressing for production, it became apparent that officers had used both personal and work phones to communicate about the investigation. Some officers had automatic deletion settings enabled on their personal devices, resulting in the loss of messages after one year. The lead case agent later admitted that he had participated in group text exchanges related to the case but failed to search his own phone before those messages were automatically deleted.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia heard testimony concerning the Government’s efforts to locate responsive communications. According to the record, officers were initially asked whether they possessed relevant messages, and their answers were largely accepted at face value. No comprehensive search of personal phones was conducted. Even after body-worn camera footage demonstrated the existence of text messages, the Government repeatedly maintained that responsive communications either did not exist or had already been accounted for through other evidence. Only after litigation over the discovery dispute intensified did the Government undertake broader searches. Those efforts ultimately uncovered hundreds of additional communications that had not previously been identified or produced.
The Court found those efforts inadequate. It emphasized that prosecutors are obligated not only to disclose discoverable information but also to make reasonable efforts to identify, preserve, and collect evidence held by members of the prosecution team. Those obligations apply equally to electronic communications. In the Court’s view, the Government’s reliance on officers’ recollections and limited manual searches fell short of those responsibilities, particularly where messages plainly visible on body-worn camera footage were initially overlooked.
This opinion is notable because the Court framed these obligations as part of the Government’s Brady responsibilities. Citing the prosecution’s duty to learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on the Government’s behalf, the Court made clear that prosecutors cannot simply assume officers will identify and preserve potentially discoverable information on their own. When officers communicate about investigations through text messages, those communications may become subject to the same discovery, preservation, and disclosure obligations as more traditional investigative records.
The Court was especially critical of the Government’s preservation efforts. Officers involved in the case conducted investigative communications through personal devices while using settings that automatically deleted messages. By the time more substantial collection efforts began, some communications had already been lost. The Court described the Government’s approach as “at best […] careless approach to discovery that cannot be accepted by Courts.” The opinion also noted the Government’s concession that “the initial collection of discovery materials was inadequate” and that officers should have “identif[ied], collect[ed], and produce[d] discoverable text communications earlier and without the prodding of defense counsel.”
David sought production of all communications mentioning him or relating to the investigation. The Court found that request too broad. However, it concluded that communications concerning the traffic stop, vehicle search, and events immediately surrounding those activities could contain discoverable information. Messages exchanged among officers at the scene, the Court explained, could bear on issues raised in David’s suppression motion, including what officers knew, how they coordinated the stop, and whether contemporaneous communications matched later reports and testimony.
To address those concerns, the Court ordered a focused forensic extraction of relevant work and personal devices used by officers who communicated about the surveillance, stop, or search. The parties were directed to confer regarding search terms, date limitations, and technical parameters for the collection. Following the extraction, the Government must review the material for discoverability and produce responsive communications, with disputed issues submitted to the Court for review.
The Court stopped short of authorizing an unrestricted search of officers’ phones and expressly recognized the privacy interests implicated by examination of personal devices. It directed that “[a]ll reasonable efforts should be used to conduct the search of personal phones to protect the private information of the officers involved.” Nonetheless, the opinion makes clear that when officers use personal phones to conduct investigative business, those communications may become subject to the same preservation and discovery obligations that apply to more traditional forms of evidence.
United States v. David, No. 7:26-cr-00006 (W.D. Va. June 30, 2026).