Jones v. State, 2011 Del. LEXIS 482

Jones was arrested at a private Newark party for drug-related offenses based on observed drugs; officers later obtained a warrant to search his home after seizing drugs and cash at the scene.
Police recovered 24 grams of cocaine from a plant bed outside the venue, leading to Jones’s arrest and a subsequent search warrant for 1003 Liberty Road.
The suppression motions argued the initial arrest/encounter was an illegal seizure and that evidence from the home was tainted; the Superior Court denied both motions.
A separate, later trial involved other drug and firearm offenses stemming from evidence seized at Jones’s home; Jones challenged the suppression rulings.
The Delaware Supreme Court held that the initial seizure was unlawful and that the drugs and home-seizure evidence were inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree, reversing the judgments.
The court concluded that suppression of all tainted evidence was required under Article I, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jones was seized during the Thunderguards encounter.	Jones was unlawfully seized; he was not free to leave.	The encounter was consensual and not a seizure; Jones could have left.	Seizure found; encounter was coercive.
Whether there was reasonable articulable suspicion to seize Jones under the private security statute.	Popp had no specific facts showing a statute violation.	Police had a reasonable hunch a civil violation occurred.	No reasonable suspicion; seizure invalid.
Whether the encounter could be an administrative seizure under Burger.	The activity did not fall within § 1329 as business security, so Burger does not apply.	Administrative seizure possible if activity fits statute.	Administrative seizure not valid; Burger not applicable.
Whether abandonment of the cocaine was tainted by an illegal seizure.	Abandonment could be voluntary and not taint; suppression not automatic.	Abandonment caused by illegal stop; taint should be suppressed.	Abandonment tainted; drugs suppressed.
Whether the warrant to search Jones’s home was supported by probable cause after excising tainted information.	Taunted information should have been considered; probable cause existed.	After taint removal, no timely probable cause remained.	Probable cause lacked; evidence suppressed.

California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (seizure defined by show of authority and submission to restraint)
Williams v. State, 962 A.2d 210 (Del. 2008) (consensual encounters may become seizures depending on totality of circumstances)
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2005) (police questioning generally not a seizure; context matters)
United States v. Scheets, 188 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 1999) (multi-factor totality-of-the-circumstances test for seizures (Scheets factors))
Jones v. State, 745 A.2d 856 (Del. 1999) (Delaware standard for whether an encounter constitutes a seizure)