Opinion
No. 9909013999.
Submitted: April 10, 2000.
Decided: April 12, 2000.
Defendant's Motion Suppress — Denied.
Dennis Kelleher, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, 45 The Green, Dover, Delaware 19901.
Joseph A. Hurley, Esquire, 1215 King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
Counsel:
Without addressing the timeliness of Defendant's further submissions, this is the Court's decision on the Defendant's letter dated April 3, 2000, in support of his Motion to Suppress. The Court will accept the Defendant's letter, as an addition to his prior letter, as well as the State's response, because the case relied on by the Defendant was not issued by the United States Supreme Court until the same day that I ruled on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
The Defendant is asking this Court to reconsider its prior ruling of March 28, 2000 in light of the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Florida v. J.L., ___ U.S. ___ (March 28, 2000). After reading this opinion, and upon further consideration of the facts before the Court, I do not find that this case changes the Court's rationale as stated in its letter opinion. The most recent enunciation by the U.S. Supreme Court merely reiterates the fact that when looking at information supplied by an informant, the Court must look at the "totality of the circumstances" in coming to a conclusion on whether the tip is to be considered reliable. The Court has done this for this case. I have previously ruled that the seventeen articulable facts pointed out by the informant gave the police probable cause to search the Defendant's automobile. This Court used the "totality of the circumstances" test in coming to its prior ruling, and this recent opinion does not alter the Court's rationale in any manner. Therefore, the Defendant's Motion to Suppress is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WLW/dmh oc: Prothonotary xc: Counsel Order Distribution File