Opinion
I.D.# 0305014989
Submitted: November 5, 2003
Decided: November 6, 2003
UPON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS. DENIED. ORDER
1. Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress ("the Motion"). Because Defendant fails within the body of the Motion to allege a factual basis sufficient to require a hearing, the Motion is DENIED.
2. Defendant was indicted in June 2003 for: 1) Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited (title 11, section 1448 of the Delaware Code); 2) Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (title 11, section 1447A of the Delaware Code); 3) Possession with Intent to Deliver a Non-Narcotic Schedule I Controlled Substance (Marijuana) (title 16, section 4752 of the Delaware Code); 4) Use of a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled Substances (title 16, section 4755(a)(5) of the Delaware Code); and 5) Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (title 16, section 4771 of the Delaware Code).
3. The factual allegations of the Motion follow in their entirety:
1. On March 10, 2003, Officers of the Wilmington Police Department stopped and searched Defendant . . . in the 1400 block of West 3rd Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
2. The initial detention of Defendant was not based on reasonable, articulable suspicion that Defendant had committed or was about to commit an offense.
3. The search of Defendant's person after the unlawful stop exceeded the permissible scope of a protective search for weapons. . . .
4. The seizure of the Defendant was not founded upon probable cause.
5. The search of Defendant's vehicle was without consent or a search warrant and therefore illegal.
6. Any evidence seized or statements made after the illegal stop and search of Defendant and/or Defendant's arrest must be suppressed as such statements constitute "fruit of the poisonous tree" as a direct result of the illegal search.
4. In urging the Court to deny the Motion, the State argues that:
there is no factual basis for the Court to entertain the [D]efendant's Motion, and no legal basis upon which the Court could arguably conclude a violation of [D]efendant's rights occurred. The [D]efendant has simply failed to allege [any]thing more than a conclusory and general statement regarding the detention and search of the [D]efendant. The Motion fails to allege any specific actions taken by the unidentified Wilmington Police [O]fficers that would support a finding that the [D]efendant's constitutional rights were violated.
Def.'s Mot. ¶¶ 1-6 (citations omitted).
State's Answer to Def.'s Mot. ¶ 3.
5. Superior Court Criminal Rule 41(f) provides in pertinent part that a motion to suppress "shall state the grounds upon which it is made with sufficient specificity to give the [S]tate reasonable notice of the issues and to enable the [C]ourt to determine what proceedings are appropriate to address them." The Rule has been interpreted to require this Court to hold an evidentiary hearing "only if the motion . . . alleges facts that, if proved, would require the grant of relief[,]" i.e., factual allegations that are general and conclusory "will not suffice." In other words, "[m]ere general allegations and conclusory statements do not trigger a [suppression] hearing."
State v. Manley, 706 A.2d 535, 540 (Del.Super.Ct. 1996) (quoting 3 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 675 (2d ed. 1982)); see also State v. Russell, I.D.# 0302012322, 2003 WL 21998966, at *2 (Del.Super.Ct. Aug. 22, 2003) (denying defendant's "conclusory" motion to suppress and stating that "mere conjecture without more, militates against convening a suppression hearing . . .").
Russell, 2003 WL 21998966 at *1. Other courts have similarly held, e.g., United States v. Migely, 596 F.2d 511 (1st Cir. 1979); United States v. Poe, 462 F.2d 195 (5th Cir.),' cert. denied, 414 U.S. 845 (1972); United States v. Bellamy, 436 F.2d 542 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 929 (1971); United States v. Culotta, 413 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 1019 (1969); Grant v. United States, 282 F.2d 165 (2d Cir. 1960).
6. Applying that standard here, the Court concludes that an evidentiary hearing will not be held based upon the general and conclusory nature of the factual allegations contained within the Motion. The practical effect of this conclusion is that Defendant's Motion is DENIED. The suppression hearing scheduled for November 7, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. is cancelled.