Opinion
I.D. No. 0905009577.
August 27, 2009.
Thomas A. Pedersen, Esquire, Georgetown, DE.
Donald A. Bucklin, Esquire, Georgetown, DE.
Dear Counsel:
The defense has filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence seized following the execution of a search warrant at the Defendant's residence.
As noted by the defense, the Court must review the "four corners" of the warrant affidavit to determine if probable cause exists for a warrant to issue.
The defense complains that the confidential informant was not noted as being past-proven reliable. The defense also complains that the affidavit itself does not go into detail as to whether the controlled purchase protocol was followed.
The defense is correct that the initial report from the confidential informant does not have any indicia of reliability to constitute probable cause. But, and it's a big "BUT", that informant (a) confirmed by way of a photograph that the person who was the target of the warrant (the Defendant) was known by him/her; and, (b) made a controlled purchase from "Curtis" through the oversight of the Delaware State Police. While more detail may be better, I am satisfied that a common sense review of the contents of the warrant established probable cause for the warrant to have been issued. It establishes the police used the confidential informant to make a "controlled purchase".
The Motion to Suppress is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.