DUVAL COUNTY, Fla. – Attorneys for Shanna Gardner are asking a Duval County judge to throw out evidence gathered from wiretaps placed on her cellphone, Apple Watch and her sister’s cellphone — arguing law enforcement lacked the legal basis to intercept the communications in the first place.
The motion filed April 15, takes direct aim at two court-authorized wiretaps and the conversations they captured.
Recommended Videos
Gardner is charged with first-degree murder in connection with the February 2022, shooting death of her ex-husband Jared Bridegan. The state alleges Gardner conspired with her husband and co-defendant, Mario Fernandez, to hire Henry Tenon — a former tenant — to carry out the killing.
January 2023 wiretap
On Jan. 21, 2023, a judge authorized wiretaps — referred to in court documents as the “January Wiretap” — on devices belonging to four people, including Gardner, Fernandez and two of his associates identified in the filing only as J.B. and J.O.
Two of Gardner’s devices were targeted: her cellphone and her Apple Watch.
A Jacksonville Beach Police Department detective submitted a probable cause affidavit in support of the wiretap application. According to the defense, that affidavit was loaded with evidence against others — surveillance footage, location data, financial records and a Google search for a 10 mm pistol by J.B. — but offered very little when it came to Gardner herself.
“The January Affidavit provided scant information against Ms. Gardner,” the motion states, noting it was limited to her relationship with the victim and with Fernandez, an alleged motive tied to a dispute that occurred years earlier, and three checks written to Tenon — checks signed by Fernandez Saldana, not Gardner.
The defense argues there was no surveillance footage, no location data, no controlled calls and no incriminating statements tying Gardner to the crime.
What the wiretaps captured
Law enforcement intercepted multiple phone calls and text messages between Jan. 23 and Feb. 3, 2023, through the January Wiretap.
According to court documents, detectives flagged what they called “significant conversations” between Gardner and a friend identified only as K.J. In those calls, the two women discussed various theories about the case, the arrest of Tenon — which the defense notes had been publicly announced by law enforcement and the State Attorney’s Office — and Gardner’s concern that her phone was being monitored.
The defense notes the timing is important: Gardner’s concerns about surveillance followed a Jan. 25, 2023, press conference in which authorities announced Tenon’s arrest. The defense alleges law enforcement “leaked” information to the media ahead of that announcement.
The February wiretap, and Gardner’s sister’s phone
On Feb. 3, 2023, a judge authorized a second wiretap — the “February Wiretap” — on a cellphone registered to Gardner’s sister, identified only as S.H.
Det. Johns’ probable cause affidavit for that wiretap cited a call intercepted Feb. 1, 2023, in which Gardner and K.J. discussed S.H.’s upcoming visit, planned for Feb. 2 through 5. During that call, Gardner suggested K.J.’s husband — identified as B.J. — should call S.H. to “catch up.”
Detectives interpreted the “tone” of the conversation as evidence that Gardner and K.J., not S.H. and B.J., would be the ones actually communicating through S.H.’s phone.
The defense sharply disputes that interpretation, arguing the affidavit relied on the detective’s “subjective interpretation” of the call’s tone and pace — not on any concrete evidence.
Defense: Wiretaps built on speculation
Gardner’s attorney argues both wiretap authorizations were built on speculation rather than probable cause, and that the issuing judge “abandoned her judicial role” by signing off on them.
“The affidavits do not establish the most important link for probable cause for the evidence sought — that Ms. Gardner was a principal to the murder,” the motion reads.
The attorney also points out that Gardner’s communications with her husband, her own attorney and a crisis management firm — cited in the January affidavit — cannot reasonably serve as the basis for wiretapping her, given the intense media coverage the family was facing at the time.
The defense further argues that because the February Wiretap on S.H.’s phone was based largely on information gathered through what they call an unlawful January Wiretap, evidence from that second intercept must also be suppressed under Florida precedent.
What’s at stake
If the court grants the motion, all communications intercepted through both wiretaps — along with any evidence derived from those communications — would be excluded from trial.