State of Delaware v. Cody W. Shutak
1702004883
| Del. Ct. Com. Pl. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- On Feb. 7, 2017, Shutak's vehicle was struck while reversing after an attempted illegal U-turn; Delaware State Police responded and identified Shutak as the driver.
- Corporal Ballard smelled burnt marijuana, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes, and administered field sobriety tests; he told another trooper, "Cody is coming with me," then handcuffed and arrested Shutak.
- Trooper Ivey (a DRE) was paged, interviewed Shutak at the station after Miranda warnings were given, and recorded admissions that Shutak and a friend had smoked marijuana shortly before driving; Ivey also observed indicia of impairment.
- Shutak moved to suppress evidence arguing lack of reasonable suspicion, lack of probable cause, Miranda violations, MVR chain-of-custody/authentication problems, and other challenges; the court held a suppression hearing and then a trial.
- The court denied the suppression motion, finding the accident investigation and observable signs (odor of marijuana, bloodshot eyes, admissions, poor FST performance) supported investigation and probable cause.
- At trial the court found the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Shutak drove and was under the influence of marijuana, convicting him of DUI and an improper U-turn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial detention/investigation required reasonable articulable suspicion | State: No separate stop occurred; police were responding to a collision and had duty to investigate | Shutak: No reasonable articulable suspicion to investigate or detain for DUI | Court: No reasonable-suspicion problem — officer arrived at accident scene and had duty to investigate; odor and appearance justified DUI inquiry |
| Whether arrest was supported by probable cause for DUI | State: Totality (accident, odor of marijuana, bloodshot eyes, admissions, poor FSTs) established probable cause | Shutak: Exclude certain evidence (statements, MVR); without excluded items probable cause fails | Court: Exclusion arguments rejected; remaining evidence sufficed for probable cause |
| Whether Corporal Ballard’s on-scene remark triggered Miranda (custodial interrogation) | State: Remark did not place Shutak in custody; statements were non‑accusatory during accident investigation | Shutak: "Cody is coming with me" signaled custody and triggered Miranda | Court: Remark did not create a custodial setting; Miranda not required at that point |
| Whether MVR was admissible without full chain-of-custody witness | State: MVR authenticated by Trooper Moore who had personal knowledge of events shown | Shutak: MVR not properly authenticated / chain-of-custody lacking | Court: Trooper Moore’s eyewitness testimony properly authenticated the MVR under Masarone |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. State, 143 A.3d 712 (Del. 2016) (a directed stop/seizure of vehicle implicates Fourth Amendment)
- Masarone v. State, 91 A.3d 562 (Del. 2014) (MVR may be authenticated either by chain of custody or by a witness with personal knowledge)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (custody test: whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Lefebvre v. State, 19 A.3d 287 (Del. 2011) (probable cause standard described as a quantum of trustworthy factual information)
- Boase v. State, 884 A.2d 495 (Del. 2005) (probable cause to arrest for DUI can rest on traffic violation, odor, bloodshot/glassy eyes, and admissions)
- Milligan v. State, 116 A.3d 1232 (Del. 2015) (Sixth Amendment confrontation rights are trial-centered; implications for testimonial evidence)