State of Delaware v. Kimberly Gilbert
1610006797
Del. Ct. Com. Pl.May 15, 2017Background
- On Oct. 12, 2016 at ~12:47 a.m., a Delaware State Police trooper observed Kimberly Gilbert commit minor driving errors (lane crossing, then drifting off the right fog line) and stopped her.
- At the stop Gilbert reportedly stopped short of a red light and placed her car in park; she was the sole occupant.
- Officer observed glassy, bloodshot eyes, slurred/mumbled speech, and a strong odor of alcohol; Gilbert refused all field sobriety and breath tests.
- Officer obtained a magistrate-issued warrant to draw Gilbert’s blood; Gilbert moved to suppress the blood-evidence arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause.
- The Court reviewed the affidavit under the magistrate-deference standard and denied the motion to suppress, finding the totality of circumstances supported probable cause for a blood draw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavit supported probable cause for blood-draw warrant | State: affidavit facts (traffic violation, erratic driving, odor, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, refusal of tests) establish fair probability of DUI evidence | Gilbert: affidavit insufficient, comparable cases required suppression (insufficient facts or conclusory field-test statements) | Denied — magistrate had substantial basis; totality of circumstances sufficient |
| Whether refusal to perform field sobriety tests may be used to show intoxication | State: refusal is admissible to show consciousness of guilt / indicia of intoxication | Gilbert: refusal cannot substitute for affirmative test results to establish probable cause | Held admissible and probative; refusal contributed to probable cause |
| Whether prior cases (Mulholland, Cajthaml, Sharp) compel suppression | Gilbert: relied on those rulings to argue similar facts failed to establish probable cause | State: distinguishes facts (no extreme weather, non‑conclusory refusal, stronger indicators here) | Court distinguished those cases and declined to apply them |
| Standard of review for magistrate’s probable‑cause determination | State: magistrate-deference per Rybicki; review not de novo | Gilbert: urged stricter scrutiny of affidavit content | Court applied Rybicki deferential totality-of-circumstances review and found affidavit sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Rybicki v. State, 119 A.3d 663 (Del. 2015) (articulates deferential review of magistrate probable‑cause determinations under totality-of-circumstances)
- Lefebvre v. State, 19 A.3d 287 (Del. 2011) (distinguishes scientific HGN test from non‑scientific field sobriety tests)
- Ruthardt v. State, 680 A.2d 349 (Del. Super. 1996) (discusses use and purpose of non‑scientific field sobriety tests)
- State v. Adams, 13 A.3d 1162 (Del. Super. 2008) (burden shift when a magistrate issues a warrant)