Opinion
No. 80, 2002
Submitted: June 19, 2002
Decided: June 21, 2002
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. A. Nos. IN00-12-0004 thru 0007 Cr. ID. No. 0006001556
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
PRESTON STEWART, Defendant Below, Appellant, State of Delaware v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 80, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: June 19, 2002 Decided: June 21, 2002Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER
This 21st day of June, 2002, upon consideration of the parties' briefs and argument and given our standard of review it appears to the Court:
1. That the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis that at the time the police officer confronted and seized the Appellant's person they had probable cause to arrest him.
Foraker v. State, 394 A.2d 208, 213 (Del. 1978); State v. Bowden, 273 A.2d 481, 483-84 (Del. 1971).
2. The police acted upon information given to them by a security guard whom they knew was employed at a State facility. The information supplied suggested that the security guard saw a person meeting the Appellant's description selling drugs in the vicinity where the police found Appellant. The police realized that the security guard knew that the police knew him as well as where and how to find him if he were to supply them with false or misleading information.
3. The police reasonably and fairly concluded that the information supplied by the security guard was firsthand, likely to be accurate, untainted by improper motive, and, therefore, reliable. The police reason to believe that the Appellant had been dealing drugs was enhanced when Appellant confirmed the security guard's information by not only meeting the description given but also by appearing "startled" at their sudden arrival and reacting to it by twice attempting to avoid contact with the officers after being confronted and asked to remove his hand from his pockets. The Appellant's location, description and actions confirmed reliable information directly tying him to observed drug sales. Seizing Appellant's person as he attempted to leave the police presence was justified by probable cause to believe he had been engaged in selling drugs. The contraband disgorged in the process of effecting the arrest was properly seized and admissible at trial.
4. Our determination that probable cause existed to arrest the Appellant validates, a fortiori, the Superior Court's conclusion that there was a valid cause for detention under 10 Del. C. § 1902. Moreover, "if lawful cause of arrest exists, the arrest is lawful even though the officer. . . gives a reason that does not justify arrest."
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.