Opinion
Case Nos. IK02-10-0026, 0028 thru 0031
Submitted: September 30, 2003.
Decided: September 30, 2003. Written Decision Issued: October 14, 2003.
Upon Defendant's Motion to Suppress. Denied.
Christopher R. Parker, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Dover, Delaware, attorneys for the State of Delaware.
Benjamin A. Schwartz, Esquire of Schwartz Schwartz, P.A., Dover, Delaware, attorneys for the Defendant.
ORDER
Introduction
Before this Court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress evidence obtained when police executed a search warrant. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is denied .
Facts
During the last week in August 2002, the Smyrna Police observed foot traffic to and from Angela Bordley's ("Defendant" or "Bordley') residence. During the weeks of September 9, 2002 and September 16, 2002, the Smyrna Police executed controlled purchases at the residence from Defendant's father. In addition, a confidential informant told the police that she had previously purchased crack cocaine from the Defendant. On the basis of this information the police obtained a warrant to search the Defendant's residence. During the search of the residence the police discovered crack pipes, a metal dish containing plastic bags and marijuana. Defendant was not present during the search and the car she usually drove was not parked at the home. The police officers learned from the persons present in the residence that the Defendant had driven to Dover to purchase crack cocaine. The detective in charge radioed to officers to stop the Defendant's vehicle as she returned from Dover. The police stopped the Defendant while she was driving her mother's Jeep. She was taken into custody and the Jeep was searched, revealing a large amount of cocaine. Defendant was then charged with the current drug offenses.
Argument
Defendant argues that the evidence recovered should be suppressed because the affidavit supporting the search warrant did not establish probable cause and the search warrant was over broad. The State contends that the police obtained sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle after executing the search warrant on the home.
Discussion
Probable Cause to Issue Search Warrant
Defendant's first argument is that the affidavit for the search warrant failed to establish probable cause and thus the warrant would be invalid. The basis for the warrant was foot traffic to and from the residence which was consistent with drug activity and controlled purchases made by the police of cocaine from Defendant's father at the Defendant's residence. The Judge concluded that this was sufficient to establish probable cause and issued the warrant.
The Delaware Supreme Court stated the law regarding search warrants in Dorsey v. State. Sufficient facts must appear within the "four-corners" of the affidavit such that an appellate court can verify the factual basis for the judge's decision regarding probable cause. In determining whether probable cause exists, there must be a logical nexus between the items sought and the place to be searched. The affidavit must also "set forth facts adequate for a neutral judicial officer to form a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that seizable property would be found in a particular place or on a particular person." Title 11 Del. C. § 2306 of the Delaware Code states,
761 A.2d 807 (Del. 2000).
Id. at 811.
Id.
Id.
The application or complaint for a search warrant shall be in writing, signed by the complainant and verified by oath or affirmation. It shall designate the house, place, conveyance or person to be searched and the owner or occupant thereof (if any), and shall describe the things or person sought as particularly as may be, and shall substantially allege the cause for which the search is made or the offense committed by or in relation to the persons or things searched for, and shall state that the complainant suspects that such person or things are concealed in the house, place, conveyance or person designated and shall recite the facts upon which such suspicion is founded.
11 Del. C. § 2306 (2003).
Great deference should be paid to the magistrate's determination of probable cause when issuing the warrant.
Jensen v. State, 482 A.2d 105 (Del. 1984).
The search warrant may be archaic, but did establish sufficient probable cause. The confidential informant who had supplied the initial information to the police was a past proven reliable source. The police set up controlled buys from the residence and the surveillance showed foot traffic indicative of drug activity.
Search Warrant is not Over broad
Title 11 Del. C. § 2307 of the Delaware Code provides that a warrant must designate the house, place or person to be searched and must describe the items sought as particularly as possible. In the present warrant, the affidavit set forth that Angela Bordley and Kary Crain both resided at 26 South Delaware Street in Smyrna, Delaware and stated what property was to be seized. In addition, the affidavit described the investigation undertaken up to that point and established sufficient probable cause. Defendant's contention is that the warrant is over broad because it allows the police to search the entire town of Smyrna. The search warrant clearly allowed the police to search only the residence at 26 South Delaware Street. The warrant states the address, the fact that it is the residence of the Defendant and her father, and describes the physical appearance of the house. For these reasons, the search warrant is not over broad.
The police had Probable Cause to Stop and Search Defendant's Vehicle
Defendant's final contention is that the warrant did not permit the police to search the Defendant's vehicle and that the police did not have sufficient probable cause to permit such a search. While executing the search of the house, the police were told by occupants that the Defendant had driven to Dover to purchase more crack cocaine. Based on this information, as well as the drug related items seized from the residence and the prior statement of a confidential informant that she had purchased cocaine from the Defendant, the detective in charge authorized fellow officers to stop the Defendant's vehicle while she was returning from Dover. During a search of the vehicle, the officers discovered a large quantity of crack cocaine. The police were not relying on their previous search warrant as the basis for the search of the vehicle, but on the information obtained during the execution of the warrant. The warrant itself would not have authorized the police to stop and search the Defendant's vehicle.
The Delaware Supreme Court dealt with a similar situation in Rodriguez v. State, in which the police obtained information regarding drugs and weapons in a vehicle while executing a search warrant of the residence. The Court concluded that the statement of a resident in the house that Rodriguez had weapons and drugs in his car, in addition to the information known prior to obtaining the search warrant, was sufficient probable cause to authorize a search of the vehicle without a search warrant. The immediate search of the vehicle "was permitted, under the circumstances, as a well established exception to the requirement for a search warrant."
1994 Del. LEXIS 199 (Del.Supr. 1994).
Id. at *11.
The present case is very similar to Rodriguez. If the police had taken the time to obtain a warrant prior to stopping and searching the vehicle, there was a high probability that the Defendant would have seen the police cars at the residence and disposed of the drugs. The police had sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant to search the vehicle, and given the circumstances, it was reasonable for the police to conduct the search of the vehicle immediately.
Conclusion
Based on the above reasons, Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence is hereby denied . IT IS SO ORDERED.