Opinion
Case No. 1609009446
03-23-2017
STATE OF DELAWARE v. GARRETT KING
ORDER Upon Defendant's Motion to Suppress, DENIED.
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of a search warrant for a vehicle owned and known, by surveillance and otherwise, to be operated by the Defendant. Defendant makes two claims. First, Defendant claims the warrant must fail because the drug for which the affiant claims probable cause is identified as heroin, but the affidavit makes no reference to heroin in connection with the Defendant. In fact, the Affidavit references controlled buys for cocaine and information from confidential sources about other controlled substances, but not heroin.
The Defendant also claims the warrant is insufficient to support a search for other items identified by the affiant that are related to drug distribution or use, such as drug paraphernalia, cell phones, money, and records of transactions.
The Affidavit of Probable Cause supporting the search warrant identifies three instances between mid-August and mid-September when purchases of controlled substances are alleged to have occurred between the Defendant and a cooperating individual. Two of those transactions occurred upon the Defendant's arrival at a specific location in the subject vehicle; one at a residence alleged to be where the Defendant resides. All the transactions were arranged by telephone, although the Affidavit does not indicate if the phone was a cell phone or land line.
The Court is satisfied that there was sufficient probable cause stated in the warrant, to support a search of the vehicle in question. The Affidavit supports that transactions involving illegal contraband occurred with that contraband and the Defendant arriving in the vehicle. The Defendant communicated by telephone with the cooperating individual and it is sworn that it is common for those engaged in the distribution of drugs to use cell phones. Even without specifying the means by which the specific transactions were arranged, the Affidavit supports that the Defendant may very well have a cell phone which may contain evidence of requests for, or confirmation that the Defendant could or did provide contraband to, this cooperating individual or others.
The standard, in reviewing the sufficiency of a search warrant is that there be a substantial basis to conclude probable cause exists to support the search for the items specified. Defendant relies upon LeGrande. The Court finds the LeGrande case is factually different. In that case, there was no confirmation of an anonymous tip that the Defendant had possession of the contraband sought, or that there was contraband on the premises searched, only that the Defendant had a connection to the premises. Here the information contained in the Affidavit would clearly support a reasonable and common sense conclusion that the Defendant was involved in the distribution of contraband and that he transported that contraband and the proceeds of the sale of the contraband in the vehicle in question, and further, that the Defendant was available by phone.
Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288, 296 (Del. 2006); accord Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983) ("[T]he duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a 'substantial basis for ... conclud[ing]" that probable cause existed.")).
LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103 (Del. 2008).
The warrant specifies heroin as the specific illegal substance the officers were looking for, and clearly the Affidavit did not support there was reason to believe they would find heroin. But the warrant also specified that the officers were looking for drug paraphernalia or currency in close proximity to paraphernalia and the Affidavit clearly supports probable cause to believe there might be such items found in the search of the Defendant or his vehicle.
Finally, there has been no claim that any controlled substances that were found, or any items other than paraphernalia, were found in an area there could not be the presence of paraphernalia as identified in the Addendum.
See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 821 (1982) (A warrant to search a vehicle would support a search of every part of the vehicle that might contain the object of the search). --------
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
M. Jane Brady
Superior Court Judge