Section 1: Summary

Date: February 12, 2026, 2:00 PMCourt / Case: US vs. Daniel “Des” Sanchez Estrada (Prairieland case)

Judge: Mark Pittman

Parties Present:

• Defense: Christopher James Weinbel (attorney for Daniel Sanchez Estrada); co-counsel present (unnamed in notes)
• Prosecution: Government counsel (name not recorded in notes)
• Defendant: Daniel Sanchez Estrada — appeared in red jumpsuit with chains on wrists and feet, accompanied by two US Marshals

Type of Proceeding: Pre-trial motions hearing — defense motion to suppress evidence from warrantless vehicle search and arrest

---

Key Takeaways

• Defense moved to suppress Mr. Sanchez’s arrest and the vehicle search, arguing the traffic stop was pretextual, the arrest for a “wide right turn” was invalid, no warrant existed for the vehicle, and the search violated the 4th Amendment.
• Dash cam footage played in court captured officers saying “We’ve got to find a way to detain his ass” and discussing explosives and IEDs with no apparent basis — the bomb sweep of the truck found nothing.
• Judge Pittman expressed serious concerns, stating the body cam gaps “appear suspicious,” remarking he had never seen anyone arrested for a wide right turn, and telling the prosecution “You have to admit it’s weak tea.”
• Judge took the motion under advisement — ruling expected by the following Tuesday at the latest. If the motion is granted, defense stated they still wish to proceed with the joint trial (no severance).

---

Narrative Summary

Motions and Arguments

The hearing concerned a defense motion to suppress evidence obtained during the warrantless stop, arrest, and vehicle search of Daniel Sanchez Estrada on January 22, 2026. The central question was whether the arrest and search violated the 4th Amendment.

Defense argument: Attorney Christopher Weinbel argued that Denton PD stopped and arrested Mr. Sanchez based on a wide right turn — a violation of the Texas Transportation Code, but one the judge noted he had never seen lead to an arrest. Defense presented Exhibit 4 showing a “Right Lane Closed” sign at the location, meaning Mr. Sanchez had to move into the middle lane, as did the officer following him. Defense argued the officers did not know who Mr. Sanchez was or why they were stopping him — they had simply been asked to make the stop.

Dash cam and body cam footage totaling over 24 hours was referenced, with defense highlighting numerous breaks and muted periods. Defense stated an accidental un-mute captured the key quote about needing “to find a way to detain” Mr. Sanchez. Officers on video also speculated about explosives and IEDs, but the subsequent bomb sweep (using a bomb-sniffing dog, a drone, and possibly an x-ray) found nothing.

After Mr. Sanchez was detained and complied, officers did not protect his feet (shown on video). The truck was then searched by four men in black uniforms (Note-Taker B noted uncertainty about whether this was Denton PD or FBI) who opened small boxes and bags. The truck was towed and an inventory search was referenced, though the details were unclear from the notes. Defense argued there was no warrant for the vehicle and no probable cause was documented until the following day, when obstruction of justice was cited.

Defense cited two 5th Circuit cases: Hensley, 469 U.S. [1985] — requiring clear communication when officers rely on information from other officers — and two cases on back-filling probable cause: 199 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 1999) [phonetic] and 962 F.2d 3 (5th Cir. 1992) [phonetic], arguing that probable cause cannot be manufactured after the fact.

Items found in the search included: a phone, clothes, an accordion file, and trash. Note-Taker B additionally recorded that the prosecution referenced body armor, guns, propaganda material, a spray can, a Canon camera, a black zip-up hoodie, black bandana, and a black shirt found in boxes — though Note-Taker B flagged this as unclear (“where and when did they find this in box??”).

Prosecution argument: The government argued that the FBI had asked Denton PD to conduct a probable cause stop because Mr. Sanchez was under active surveillance as part of a covert investigation. The prosecution stated they were still looking for two shooters at the time, did not know what was in the boxes Mr. Sanchez was moving, and characterized the traffic stop as a “ruse” — the real basis was probable cause from the broader investigation. The prosecution cited US v. Clayton, arguing the court had already found no Franks violation (a challenge to the truthfulness of a warrant affidavit) and had upheld probable cause to search an apartment and two homes; the same cause applied to the truck stop.

The prosecution argued the body cam gaps were a “red herring,” that under the “collective knowledge” doctrine it is “black letter law” that not every officer on scene needs to know the full basis for the stop, and that officers’ speculative comments about bombs and explosives were “cops just being cops.” The government confirmed they had a separate warrant for Mr. Sanchez’s phone. When asked about the boxes, the prosecution showed photos of boxes being moved and stated the box they were looking for was never found.

Rulings and Decisions

No ruling was issued. Judge Pittman took the motion under advisement, stating he wished it were not so close to trial. He indicated he would try to rule by the following day or by Tuesday. He asked whether the defense would want a separate trial for Mr. Sanchez if the motion were granted; after conferring with co-counsel, defense said no — they wished to proceed with the joint trial.

Key Quotes

• Officer (dash cam): “We’ve got to find a way to detain his ass.”
• Officer (dash cam): “They told me they had a warrant…” / “…but there’s not.”
• Officer (dash cam): “You can’t just pull somebody over.”
• Officer (video): “I think he’s the money for this group. They’re gonna get him for terroristic crap.”
• Officer (video): “They said he had IEDs.”
• Officer (video): “They said he has approximately 4 lbs of explosives in his truck.”
• Officer (video, to bystander): “He’s a murder suspect. Keep driving. He hurt somebody, that’s what you need to know.”
• Judge Pittman: “In all my _ years I’ve never seen anyone arrested for that.” (referring to a wide right turn)
• Judge Pittman: “Breaks in turning on and off body cam appear suspicious.”
• Judge Pittman (to prosecution): “This is particularly to others on the prosecution. Am I supposed to make a prejudicial conclusion? This was not standard procedure when I was at the state.”
• Judge Pittman (to prosecution): “You’re saying he was being pulled over for obstruction so it doesn’t matter. You have to admit it’s weak tea.”
• Judge Pittman: “I know that. I’m going to take this under advisement. I wish it wasn’t so close to trial.”
• Prosecution: “We didn’t know what was being hid until we did the search.”

Evidence and Testimony

No witness testimony. Evidence presented included:

• Dash cam footage of the traffic stop and arrest
• Body cam footage (with noted gaps and muted periods)
• Defense Exhibit 4 — pre-arrest footage showing a “Right Lane Closed” sign
• Defense Exhibit 10 — referenced by prosecution (contents read aloud but not captured in notes)
• Prosecution photos of boxes being moved
• Video of Mr. Sanchez’s detention and the subsequent bomb sweep and truck search

Jury Observations

No jury present — this was a pre-trial motions hearing.

Next Court Date

Unclear from notes. The judge indicated a ruling could come as soon as the next day (February 13) or by Tuesday (February 17). Trial appears imminent based on the judge’s comment about the motion being close to trial.

Case Status Changes

No changes to bond, charges, or detention. The suppression motion remains pending. If granted, it would suppress Mr. Sanchez’s arrest and the evidence from the vehicle search, but defense indicated they would not seek a separate trial.

Incidents and Atmosphere

• Mr. Sanchez appeared in a red jumpsuit with chains on wrists and feet, escorted by two US Marshals.
• The judge signaled skepticism toward the prosecution’s position from the outset, stating at the beginning that he “had problems with this arrest.”
• The judge told the prosecutor to sit down after repeated arguments about “red herrings” and “common practice.”
• The judge took a break at approximately 2:45 PM after taking the motion under advisement.

---

Section 2: Full Notes

Note-Taker A (File: 20260212EW_EW.pdf)

Pre-trial Motion Notes
02/12/2026 2:02 PM
US vs. Estrada Sanchez

• Defense attorney stated that Mr. Sanchez was arrested based on a traffic violation. Based on dash cam footage it took a full hour for officers to come up with an arrestable offense.

[Dash cam footage played]

Officer 1: “We’ve got to find a way to detain his ass”
Officer 2: “They told me they had a warrant…”
Officer 1: “You can’t just pull somebody over.”
Officer 2: “…but there’s not.”

• Judge asks if it is against the law to make a wide right turn and Defense attorney clarifies that it is against Texas Transportation Code. Judge responds with “in all my __ years I’ve never seen anyone arrested for that.”
• [pre-arrest footage shown] Exhibit 4 shows there is a sign that says right lane closed so Mr. Sanchez had to turn into the middle lane as did the officer following him.
• The officers didn’t know who he was are what was going on.

Officer: “I think he’s the money for this group. They’re gonna get him for terroristic crap.”

• They thought he had explosives.

Officer: “they said he had IEDs”

Officer: “they said he has approximately 4 lbs of explosives in his truck.”

An angry person drives by and yells at the police and demands to know what it going on.
Officer: “He’s a murder suspect. Keep driving. He hurt somebody that’s what you need to know.”

• Defense requested to know where the officers received this information and the government did not provide an answer, instead they asked where the defense got this information.
• Judge states that what is troublesome is the breaks in the body cams, like they were trying not to record things.
• Defense attorney shares that there are over 24 hours of footage which include many breaks and muted periods. You can tell they accidentally un-muted too soon once, that is where we hear the comment about them needing to find a way to detain him.”
• Judge – “This is particularly to others on the prosecution. Am I supposed to make a prejudicial conclusion? This was not standard procedure when I was at the state.”
• Defense states that after Mr. Sanchez was detained, he complied and they do not protect his feet. [shows video]
• Then, based on their clothing, someone other than Denton PD does a bomb sweep. A bomb sniffing dog, a drone, and possibly and x-ray are used to search the truck and nothing is found.
• 2:15 Then 4 men in black uniforms, assuming Denton PD again, then goes through the truck opening small boxes and bags.
• Truck was towed and something about an inventory search and the FBI not happening.
• 2:20 Officers said they had probable cause to search for boxes. They boxes they were looking for were large. A visual search was all that was needed.
• Judge asks what would be the effect if this motion was granted.
• Defense asks that the arrest be suppressed.
• Judge asks was was found in the search.
• Defense lists phone, clothes, accordion file, and trash.
• Judge asks if this would apply to everyone of just Mr. Sanchez.
• Defense clarifies that this motion is just for Mr. Sanchez and the judge instructs them to continue. There is discussion about the grand jury.
• Defense reiterates that there was no warrant for Mr. Sanchez’s arrest. A wide right turn is an invalid reason for arrest. There was no reason for the search of the truck. They don’t say until the next day that he’s concealing to impair. There was not reason to continue the search after the protective/safety sweep. The boxes they were looking for would have been found by then.
• Judge asks prosecution if they can understand his concerns.
• Prosecution says there are pleadings in the complaint. “We didn’t know what was being hid until we did the search.” Cites US v. Clayton saying the defendant was trying to suppress a probable cause search. On Tuesday, the court found no Franks violation and there was cause to search an apartment and two homes. It is the same cause to stop Mr. Sanchez’s truck.
• 2:25 Judge pauses, “You’re saying he was being pulled over for obstruction so it doesn’t matter. You have to admit it’s weak tea.”
• Prosecution responds that Denton PD did not know why they were doing asked to detain Mr. Sanchez. We were still looking for 2 shooters at this time. We didn’t know what was in these boxes. We did have a warrant for Mr. Sanchez’s phone.
• Judge, “So you have a separate warrant for the phone. Were you going to use any of the other items found in the truck?”
• Prosecution then shows pictures of boxes being moved. We never found that box. Whatever he was moving is important. There were multiple teams surveilling him at this time. The call with Ms. Rueda happens at this time. It was a very active scenario. The defense is conflating traffic misdemeanors with a high risk stop. Denton, they don’t know what’s going on. Law enforcement were asked to conduct a probable cause stop. The on and off body cams is a red herring. We’re in a scenario where they shot a cop.
• Judge asks why the FBI could not do the inventory.
• Prosecutor replies this was a probable cause stop. The traffic stop was a ruse.
• 2:37 Judge asks if probable cause attaches to local police departments.
• Prosecutor says that it is “black letter” that not everyone on the scene needs to know.
• Judge requests the case law and Prosecutor repeats that it is common practice.
• Defense speaks up with Hensley 469 1985, if I rely on information from other officers there needs to be clear communication.
• Prosecutor repeats that it is a red herring. It is in defense exhibit 10. reads…
• Judge asks, “in your opinion that’s enough?”
• Prosecutor, “yes.”
• Defense “that doesn’t specify anything.”
• Judge “that’s why I’m asking these questions.”
• Prosecutor talks more about red herrings and common practice until Judge tell him to sit.
• 2:40 Defense references 199-753 5th cir 1999 and 962-F 24.3 5th cir. 1992 and states that you can’t back-fill probable cause.
• Judge says “I know that. I’m going to take this under advisement. I with it wasn’t so close to trial. What happens if I grant this, do we need to separate this out?
• Defense confers with co-council then responds “Your honor we’d like to proceed.”
• Judge, “okay, then I need to take a break.”

2:45

---

Note-Taker B (File: 20260212VJ_F.pdf)

Pre-Trial Motion Notes
2/12/26 (2:00 PM)

Defendant: US vs Daniele Estrada Sanchez
Defense Attorney: Christopher

Defendant entered in a red jumpsuit with chains on wrists and feet, accompanied by two US Marshals.

The Judge stated at the beginning that he had problems with this arrest. “Seems to be some issue on behalf of the US to get this _.”

Defense:

• Issues: Search of a vehicle with no warrant
• Denton PD stopped and arrested Mr. Sanchez for a wide right turn on January 22
• There are multiple stops and starts with the PD Body Cams, where Police are trying to come up with a reason for an arrest.
• It took them 45 min to an hour to come up with a reason
• Defense has evidence that there was a “Right Lane Closed” sign at the place Mr. Sanchez made the turn.
• On the dash cam, Police are saying things like “Don’t know why they’re stopping him. Thinks he might be the money man for the group.” “Might have explosives.”
• They didn’t know why they were stopping him. Only know they were asked to stop him.
• A person driving by stops and asks, “What’s going on?:” Police responded, they think he murdered someone.
• The defense attorneys have asked the prosecutors where this information came from? Why did they think he had explosives; why did they think he was a “money man”; etc. The Government states they have evidence he had a bomb, but they have provided no evidence, no answers.

Judge comments, “Breaks in turning on and off body cam appear suspicious.”

Defense: We don’t have the full picture of what happened during this stop. Information has been requested from the Government, but no response has been received.

There was no warrant until 24 hours later. There was never a warrant for the vehicle.

FBI claims to have done an inventory search. Sanchez complied (I think)

There is a bomb dog, a drone, 4 men in black search, and the vehicle was ultimately cleared. Then the PD (or FBI) go back again to start opening things in the truck.

There is a box (not clear to me when or how this box appeared)

The Government says they had probable cause to look for missing boxes. Boxes that take two hands to carry. In the truck, they found a phone, an accordion file box, trash, and clothing.

Regarding the Grand Jury, this information was provided to the defense in January.

Points:

• Sanchez did not commit an illegal right turn
• The search was not related to an arrest for a traffic violation
• Nothing else has been documented for the arrest
• Not until the next day do they say anything about there being probable cause (obstruction of justice, I think)
• Violation of 4th Amendment

Prosecution:

• The FBI asked the local PD to make a stop for probable cause and to search for something he was moving in his vehicle
• They had a warrant to search Sanchez’s house
• The Judge says – an arrest for a wide right turn is an issue.
• The prosecution says it was justified due to suspicion of obstruction of justice.
• The Denton PD had only been told to make a high-risk traffic stop.
• FBI knows they are looking for two shooters and had no idea what is in the boxes Sanchez was moving
• They had a search warrant for the phone.
• Found body armour, guns, propaganda material, spray can, cannon camera, black zip-up hoody, black bandana, black shirt (I think) in boxes
  • This is all unclear – where and when did they find this in box??
• The government had probable cause; PD did not need a traffic reason to stop him.
• The government had been conducting a covert investigation, and the defendant was under surveillance
• Prosecution kept mentioning and referring to “Clayton” saying Police can make a stop based on evidence of a crime (I think) OR suspicion of moving something of an explosive nature.

FBI is saying that the traffic stop was a ruse. They had probable cause, collective knowledge, at the time, that this is all a red herring.

DEFENSE says they have been given no evidence or information about a potential bomb threat.

Prosecution says – Government had been watching him, had his license number. Local Police don’t have to have the whole story. They never do. The Police comments about bombs, guns, etc. were cops just being cops, being suspicious.

DEFENSE sites 199F3753 from 1999 – “Can’t backfill probable cause.”

The Judge says he cannot make a decision about this. He needs time – maybe by tomorrow or Tuesday. Asks if he can’t make a decision by Tuesday, would they want a separate trial for Sanchez. Defense says, no.

Judge says he has to go think about this.