Diggs v. State
282, 2020
| Del. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- Wilmington officer Corporal Marino received a call from a recurring "concerned citizen" that a Black male (age ~30–35) in a camouflage jacket had a handgun in his waistband on South Harrison Street. Marino relayed the tip to Patrolman Raymond Shupe.
- Shupe located Murad Diggs (36) matching the description, followed him into a crowded convenience store, and asked to speak with him.
- Shupe testified Diggs immediately threw his cell phone and a cigar to the floor, assumed a defensive/athletic stance, and appeared poised to run, fight, or draw a weapon; Shupe grabbed Diggs’s arm.
- A struggle ensued, officers subdued Diggs, and a pat-down revealed a loaded handgun in Diggs’s waistband; Diggs was arrested and later convicted of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person prohibited.
- At the suppression hearing the Superior Court treated Marino’s source as a "citizen informant," found Shupe had reasonable articulable suspicion to detain and frisk Diggs, denied suppression, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Diggs) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detention was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion | The tip was from an anonymous/uncorroborated source and Shupe lacked particularized suspicion; seizure occurred before any suspicious conduct by Diggs | Tip from a familiar concerned citizen plus Shupe’s observations (throwing items, defensive stance), training, and high-crime area gave reasonable suspicion | Court: Even if tip not treated as presumptively reliable, the tip plus Shupe’s observations and circumstances provided reasonable suspicion; detention and frisk lawful |
| Whether the Superior Court erred in treating Marino’s tip as a presumptively reliable "citizen informant" | The informant did not appear to be a typical neutral eyewitness; caller’s access to Marino’s personal phone and long history of tips undermines presumption | The informant was a "concerned citizen" with a history of providing reliable information to Marino; presumption applied | Court: Criticized the citizen-informant characterization as imperfect but ruled outcome did not turn on that presumption; alternative corroborating facts suffice |
| Whether the trial court should have drawn an adverse "lost/missing evidence" inference for failure to preserve officers’ phone records and store surveillance video | Failure to preserve/produce cell-phone data and store video undermined defense and warranted an adverse inference | State lacked control over store video; phone data relevance was marginal and defendant did not specify how findings would change | Court: Claim waived below; plain-error review fails—no showing that missing data would have altered material findings or deprived due process |
| Whether a protective frisk was lawful after the stop | (Argues frisk unlawful because initial seizure unlawful) | If stop lawful, officer had reasonable ground to believe Diggs might be armed and dangerous; frisk permitted | Court: Because stop was reasonable, the limited protective frisk was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigative stops require reasonable articulable suspicion)
- Sokolow v. United States, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion evaluated by totality of circumstances; less than probable cause)
- Bailey v. State, 440 A.2d 997 (Del. 1982) (discusses citizen-informant presumption of reliability)
- Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189 (Del. 1980) (citizen-informant reliability principles)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule for unlawful searches and seizures)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (consensual encounters are not Fourth Amendment seizures)
- State v. Rollins, 922 A.2d 379 (Del. 2007) (Terry frisk authority for officer safety)
- State v. Cooley, 457 A.2d 352 (Del. 1983) (collective-knowledge doctrine)
- Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280 (Del. 2008) (standard of review for suppression rulings)