A defense attorney argued Thursday that a shoe print used to connect her client to a February shooting isn't enough to justify the man's arrest.

Public Defender Kimberly Hudak asked Butler County Judge Timothy McCune to dismiss two police warrants used to arrest her client, Michael Lee Hutchinson, 24, of Butler for attempted homicide and challenged the underlying probable cause that police used to search Hutchinson and his home.

Butler police arrested Hutchinson, 24, of Butler on Sept. 25, 2019, for a Feb. 17 shooting at a house in Butler with several people inside.

Assistant District Attorney Ben Simon argued before McCune that the warrants were legal and used a “common sense, nontechnical standard.” McCune said he would make a decision later.

Hutchinson's arrest was made after a shoe print with a partially missing tread found at the site of the crime was linked to his shoes, according to police. The distinctive prints were found in the snow Feb. 17 near a home on the 800 block of West Penn Street hit by six gunshots.

The house was occupied at the time by a 30-year-old woman and her two young children. The woman's then 34-year-old boyfriend and a 63-year-old man were visiting.

“The shots rang out and (the occupants) had to hit the floor,” Lt. David Villotti said during a preliminary hearing for Hutchinson earlier this year.

Lights were on in the house, he noted, and Hutchinson would have known there were people inside.

Police found six bullet holes in the house, one slug in the dining room and five shell casings from a .40-caliber handgun around the home. There were no eyewitnesses to the shooting.

Less than 15 hours afterward, Hutchinson appeared at the police station for an interview. On his right foot, Villotti testified, was a shoe with a tread that matched the prints found near the house. That interview set off two warrants that were issued Feb. 18 and 21 and would eventually lead to Hutchinson's arrest.

But on Thursday, Hudak argued that the warrants should have never been issued.

“The warrants were a fishing expedition to reveal evidence police did not have,” Hudak said. “Their information was deficient, not enough for warrants.”

Hudak then seized on the shoe connection.

According to police, one of the men in the house — who knew Hutchinson — looked at the prints and told police they “look like the shoes Mike Hutchinson wears.”

Villotti searched the internet and found the treads were from a Nike Air Force One. That was the same kind of shoe the defendant had on when police interviewed him around 3 p.m. Sept. 18, police said. Police used that information for one of their warrants.

But Hudak said Nike Air Force Ones are an “extremely popular” shoe brand and model and that more information would be needed to justify a warrant.

“If a shoe print matches, there has to be something else supporting that,” Hudak said.

She also noted that the second warrant Feb. 21 to search Hutchinson's home was based on a witness saying they saw somebody with a “black hoodie” running away from the house.

“His home is the highest level of privacy. Accepting those warrants cheapens the probable cause standard,” Hudak said. “They're just trying to find evidence. That's not appropriate.”

But Simon said the standard Hudak is trying to apply “is deeper than what is needed,” concluding that hearsay is allowed for warrants since “warrants are not a courtroom proceeding.”

McCune allowed both sides to file briefs in support of their positions before he makes a decision on the warrants.