Judge to review body‑cam video after dispute over handcuffing, Miranda in Evans stop

A judge said she would review body‑worn camera footage and related case law before ruling on a defense motion to suppress evidence and statements in the case against Jack Albert Evans.

The hearing on the motion, held in Bexar County courtroom proceedings on Jan. 12, centered on whether officers’ rapid detention and placement of Evans in handcuffs after signaling him while he rode a bicycle amounted to a custodial interrogation that would require Miranda warnings before the defendant’s admissions could be used at trial.

Judge Stephanie Boyd, 187th District Court, told attorneys she would review the video and the cited appellate decisions and would send the parties a proposed ruling by email. She set a recall for the next day to announce the court’s decision.

At the suppression hearing, Officer Zachary McFadden of the San Antonio Police Department described the stop: he said officers activated emergency lights, the bicyclist did not immediately stop and officers “detained him with handcuffs quickly. He was detained from the moment the lights came on.” McFadden told the court the stop occurred after dark in an area the department treats as high‑risk for narcotics activity, and that the bicyclist had no headlight or taillight on the bike, a city ordinance violation.

Defense counsel argued the written report did not document the reasons for fast, forceful restraint and contended that placing Evans in handcuffs and immediately asking questions effectively put him in custody; counsel urged suppression of statements made without Miranda warnings. The prosecutor argued that under governing Fourth Amendment reasonableness standards, the detention in handcuffs was justified by the totality of the circumstances — time of day, location, the subject’s failure to stop and the safety risk of a foot chase or traffic exposure — and therefore the subsequent statements were admissible.

Witness testimony and the body‑worn video were central in the dispute. McFadden testified that after the lights were activated the bicyclist continued for about a block, that he positioned his vehicle ahead of the bicyclist and that officers used handcuffs to prevent flight into traffic and to create a safe location to complete the stop. He said the subject admitted to possessing marijuana, and that officers then located a loose folded paper containing a crystal‑like substance.

Defense counsel highlighted that McFadden did not prepare the handling officer’s written report and that McFadden could not say whether Miranda warnings were given before questioning. The defense argued those gaps weighed in favor of finding a custodial interrogation.

Judge Boyd told the parties she would carefully review the video and the cited authorities and notify them of her ruling by email; she also directed that Evans be brought back for the next court day. The court did not rule during the hearing.

The suppression ruling will determine whether the state may use the challenged statements and the substance found during the stop at trial.