Rybicki v. State
119 A.3d 663
Del.2015Background
- On June 22, 2013, Rybicki was involved in a one-vehicle crash; officer and eyewitness observed her car stopped perpendicular to traffic and detected a strong odor of alcohol.
- Rybicki refused field sobriety, preliminary breath, and Intoxilyzer tests; she admitted at trial to drinking that night.
- Corporal Kendrick obtained a magistrate-issued warrant for a blood draw; blood taken at the station showed BAC 0.18.
- Rybicki moved to suppress the blood evidence (challenging the warrant) and separately argued there was no probable cause for her warrantless arrest; both motions were denied.
- A jury convicted Rybicki of DUI under 21 Del. C. § 4177(a); she appealed raising five issues about the warrant, arrest, sufficiency without BAC, foundation for BAC, and two jury instructions.
- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to issue blood-draw search warrant | Affidavit did not show a fair probability Rybicki was under the influence while driving (insufficient timing/staleness) | Affidavit described the accident, odor of alcohol, refusal of tests, and included timestamps — totality supports probable cause | Warrant valid; magistrate reasonably inferred probable cause given facts and timestamps |
| Probable cause for warrantless arrest | Officer lacked sufficient observable indicia of impairment to arrest | Nature of accident + officer's odor observation + refusals and scene facts provided fair probability of DUI | Probable cause to arrest existed; Superior Court did not err |
| Sufficiency of evidence absent BAC | If BAC suppressed, remaining evidence insufficient | No suppression; and issue not raised below so should not be reviewed now | Court declines to review unpreserved claim; suppression denial stands |
| Foundation for BAC test admission (sterility, etc.) | State should have shown sterility of collection kit to establish reliability (raised first on appeal) | No Delaware authority requires sterility testimony; lab testimony showed integrity and proper procedures | Issue not preserved/tactically waived; trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting BAC evidence |
| Jury instructions (reliability of test; refusal instruction) | Instructions improperly commented on evidence and endorsed State’s view | Instructions accurately stated law and were balanced; court modified refusal instruction at defense request | Reliability instruction not plain error; refusal instruction appropriate and not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera v. State, 7 A.3d 961 (Del. 2010) (standard for reviewing suppression denial after evidentiary hearing)
- State v. Holden, 60 A.3d 1110 (Del. 2013) (deference owed to magistrate’s probable cause finding and totality-of-the-circumstances test)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances standard for probable cause in warrant affidavits)
- Maxwell v. State, 624 A.2d 926 (Del. 1993) (probable cause requires facts suggesting a fair probability of an offense)
- Pierson v. State, 338 A.2d 571 (Del. 1975) (staleness concerns; timing in affidavits)
- Lefebvre v. State, 19 A.3d 287 (Del. 2011) (probable cause in DUI arrests and relevant officer observations)
- Hall v. State, 473 A.2d 352 (Del. 1984) (forbidden judicial comments on evidence)
- Floray v. State, 720 A.2d 1132 (Del. 1998) (standards for reviewing jury instructions)