Background - On July 16, 2015, probation officers went to Dwayne Karr’s camper to investigate missed probation/Aftercare appointments and locate appellant Richard Aiken, who had also failed to report. - Officers entered after Karr invited them in; they observed Aiken in the bathroom, arrested him for absconding, and searched him incident to arrest, finding small baggies and a small canvas-colored bag containing loose jewelry. - Officers obtained verbal supervisory approval for an administrative search, found a black backpack with additional jewelry, and summoned Detective McCabe, who linked some items to recent burglaries and obtained a search warrant. - Aiken was charged with multiple burglary, theft, criminal mischief, conspiracy, possession, and tampering counts; after motions and trial, the jury convicted him of two counts of second-degree burglary, two counts of criminal mischief, two counts of felony theft (reduced/post-trial relief reduced some counts), conspiracy, and tampering. - Aiken appealed, arguing (1) the probation officers’ search of the camper and evidence seizure should have been suppressed for noncompliance with Probation & Parole procedures and lack of standing, and (2) trial court erred by admitting a photo (Ex. 7) purporting to show a Masonic ring next to the bag from Aiken without proper authentication. ### Issues | Issue | Aiken’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held | |---|---:|---|---:| | Standing to challenge camper search | Aiken was an overnight guest and had a legitimate expectation of privacy | No evidence Aiken was an overnight guest; even as a passenger he had no control/ownership | Aiken lacked standing; trial court did not abuse discretion | | Lawfulness of search under Probation & Parole procedures | Officers failed to follow checklists, delayed paperwork, so search was unreasonable | Officers obtained verbal supervisor approval and substantially complied with guidelines; exigent circumstances justified actions | Substantial compliance and exigency rendered search reasonable; no suppression required | | Characterization of camper as a vehicle (raised on appeal) | Camper should be treated as a vehicle giving standing to object to vehicle search | Argument not raised below; record shows camper not a vehicle and even if vehicle Aiken lacked control/ownership | Reviewed for plain error; no plain error — argument fails | | Admission/authentication of photo (Ex. 7) showing ring next to Aiken’s bag | Photo insufficiently authenticated; no witness tied the Masonic ring specifically to the canvas bag taken from Aiken | Detective McCabe and Officer Hopkins provided circumstantial and direct testimony tying the bag to Aiken and identifying items as from that bag | Admission did not constitute reversible error; any non-redaction error harmless; no plain error on appeal | ### Key Cases Cited Pendleton v. State, 990 A.2d 417 (Del. 2010) (substantial compliance with DOC administrative-search procedures can satisfy Fourth Amendment reasonableness) Jarvis v. State, 600 A.2d 38 (Del. 1991) (occupant lacking ownership or control of vehicle lacks reasonable expectation of privacy in vehicle) Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing to challenge a search depends on a legitimate expectation of privacy) Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096 (Del. 1986) (plain-error standard and doctrine explained)