Opinion
ID# 1509018073
03-08-2016
RE: State of Delaware v. Scott J. Kuhlman
Christopher S. Marques, Esq. Department of Justice State Office Building 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Edmund D. Lyons, Jr., Esq. The Lyons Law Firm 1526 Gilpin Avenue P.O. Box 579 Wilmington, DE 19899
Jan R. Jurden President Judge Christopher S. Marques, Esq.
Department of Justice
State Office Building
820 N. French Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 Edmund D. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
The Lyons Law Firm
1526 Gilpin Avenue
P.O. Box 579
Wilmington, DE 19899 Dear Counsel:
This letter follows the suppression hearing held on February 19, 2016.
By way of background, on September 24, 2015, police responded to a call about an unresponsive subject in a truck in a lane of travel on Route 4 near Stanton Liquors. When the police arrived on the scene, the Defendant was being placed into an ambulance. The Defendant told the police he had six beers and got drunk. At Christiana Hospital, Defendant told the police he had six beers, got drunk, and fell asleep in his vehicle. The police sought and obtained a warrant to draw the Defendant's blood.
At issue is whether the police employed the proper process to obtain the warrant to have the Defendant's blood drawn.
Defendant filed several other motions but withdrew all but this one during the suppression hearing. See D.I. 10, 12, 20, 24, 29, 37.
After carefully considering the testimony and arguments presented at the suppression hearing, the Court finds that the police followed the appropriate procedure for obtaining a warrant to have Defendant's blood drawn. The Court finds no constitutional infirmity in the process.
11 Del. C. § 2306 ("The application or complaint for a search warrant shall be in writing, signed by the complainant and verified by oath or affirmation."); Mason v. State, 534 A.2d 242 (Del. 1987); State v. Lambert, 2015 WL 3897810 (Del. Super. 2015). Since the suppression hearing, JP Court 11 has located the original warrant that is at issue. D.I. 38. The Court finds Corporal Hom's testimony credible, and is satisfied that the process Corporal Hom testified that he followed to obtain the warrant comports with 11 Del. C. § 2306. The Court is satisfied that the application for the warrant was signed prior to the issuance of the warrant. Contra Lambert, 2015 WL 3897810, at *5 ("Here, 11 Del. C. § 2306's requirement that the application for the warrant be 'signed by the complainant' was unquestionably not met prior to the issuance of the warrant. An application, in natural order, must precede the granting of an application."). --------
Consequently, the Motion to Suppress is DENIED. Trial remains as scheduled on March 10, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/Jan R/ Jurden
Jan R. Jurden
President Judge JRJ:mls cc: Prothonotary