ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Former Michigan football coach Sherrone Moore won a victory in court Tuesday, as a judge granted Moore’s motion for an evidentiary hearing that will allow his lawyer to challenge the basis for his arrest.
Moore’s lawyer, Ellen Michaels, argued that a detective omitted important facts when obtaining Moore’s arrest warrant on charges of stalking, breaking and entering, and third-degree home invasion. By not disclosing that the alleged victim worked closely with Moore in the Michigan football program, Michaels argued, police presented a one-sided picture that was used to establish probable cause for Moore’s arrest. Moore’s lawyer is seeking to quash the arrest warrant and have the charges against Moore thrown out.
In setting the evidentiary hearing for March 2, Judge J. Cedric Simpson cited the “glaring omission” of the work relationship and the police’s reliance on statements from the staffer’s lawyer to obtain the arrest warrant.
“What is clear from this court’s perspective is that an omission in certain contexts can be more damaging, more problematic, more troublesome than what might be an intentional misrepresentation,” Simpson said.
Moore stood alongside Michaels as she delivered a brief statement outside the courthouse, but he subsequently drove away without speaking to reporters.
“Judge Simpson got it right in this motion, and due process matters,” Michaels said. “Coach Moore maintains his innocence, and the truth will come out.”
Statement from Moore’s lawyer, Ellen Michaels pic.twitter.com/uvZ4req3H2
— Austin Meek (@byAustinMeek) February 17, 2026
At issue in Tuesday’s hearing was the testimony of Detective Jessica Welker of the Pittsfield Township Police Department. Welker appeared before a district court magistrate on Dec. 12 and laid out the allegations that were used to obtain Moore’s arrest warrant.
Welker told the magistrate that the alleged victim in the case had been in a romantic relationship with Moore but attempted to end the relationship and break off communication with him. Welker testified that Moore made repeated attempts to contact the woman in subsequent days, including text messages and a dozen unanswered phone calls.
Moore’s lawyer argued that the testimony omitted an important detail: The woman worked for the Michigan football program in a role that would have included regular communication with Moore. Viewed in that light, Moore’s lawyer argued, the repeated communications might not constitute evidence of stalking.
Simpson agreed that the omission was relevant, telling prosecutor Kati Rezmierski, “It seems to me, if I’m the magistrate, I’m getting half the story. I’m not getting the full story. … I’m very worried about the omission.”
Michigan announced Moore’s firing on Dec. 10, citing credible evidence that he engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a staff member. Prosecutors allege that, after his firing, Moore barged into the woman’s apartment, grabbed butter knives and kitchen scissors from a drawer and made a series of threatening statements, including threats of self-harm.
Michaels argued that police relied too heavily on statements from the woman’s civil employment lawyer, Heidi Sharp, who made the 911 call that alerted authorities to the alleged incident at the woman’s apartment. Sharp told police that Moore was a “very dangerous” and had a “long history of domestic violence” against the staffer, and Welker repeated that allegation in her testimony at the complaint authorization hearing.
In granting the motion for the evidentiary hearing, Simpson expressed reservations about the degree to which police relied on statements from Sharp and not the staffer herself in making a case for an arrest warrant.
“It’s all set out by her attorney, Ms. Sharp,” Simpson said. “Virtually every statement is a rendition of what Ms. Sharp said to the police. It isn’t until a bit later in the (testimony) that you get into particular statements that are made by the complainant in this case.”
The evidentiary hearing will include testimony from witnesses to determine whether police had probable cause to arrest Moore. Moore’s lawyer has argued the case against him should be thrown out if the court decides to quash the warrant, though it’s possible charges could be refiled if he prevails at the hearing.
Rezmierski, the prosecuting attorney, argued that disclosing the working relationship between Moore and the staffer wouldn’t have altered the underlying facts that justified his arrest. She pointed to Moore’s conduct after his firing, including alleged text messages that said, “I hate you” and “My blood is on your hands,” as evidence of stalking.
“On Dec. 10, as was sworn to by detective Welker, there is more than sufficient probable cause for the issuance of a warrant that includes stalking,” Rezmierski said. “That’s my position.”