State v. Cornelius
1908008822
Del. Super. Ct.Jul 8, 2021Background
- On August 14, 2019, Detective James Wiggins (Wilmington Police, Safe Streets Task Force) stopped Ivan Cornelius’s vehicle at ~9:35 p.m. for an alleged turn-signal violation. Wiggins used an unmarked car that lacked patrol-computer access and recording equipment.
- Video from a nearby liquor store shows Cornelius parked in an on-street space; seconds later Wiggins activated lights and called Task Force backup on an unrecorded channel. Multiple officers approached from unknown locations within about a minute.
- Wiggins asked for license, registration, and insurance; Cornelius produced only his license. Wiggins testified he smelled marijuana, observed marijuana leaves in the driver-side door handle, and saw an air freshener described as "blunt spray."
- Wiggins removed Cornelius from the vehicle (not arrested) and multiple officers conducted an exterior and interior search; Wiggins later described finding a small amount of leaves insufficient for lab testing.
- At the suppression hearing, the State’s evidence contained inconsistent testimony and omissions (when stop began, whether leaves were observed, quantity of marijuana, use of Task Force reporting), which the court found undermined probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of traffic stop (reasonable suspicion to stop) | State: stop valid under 21 Del. C. § 4155(b) for signal violation | Cornelius: State did not prove when/following distance/observations to establish violation | Court: State failed to meet burden to prove a valid traffic stop |
| Probable cause to search vehicle (odor, leaves, air freshener) | State: odor of marijuana + observed leaves/air freshener gave probable cause | Cornelius: odor/leaf observations were inconsistent, amount too small, officer credibility questionable | Court: No probable cause; search unlawful; suppression granted |
| Scope/duration of stop and additional seizure | State: investigation of odor and car comported with stop’s scope | Cornelius: arrival of multiple officers and extended search exceeded stop’s purpose without independent justification | Court: Further investigation/seizure required independent justification which was not shown |
| Credibility and procedural practices (unmarked car, unrecorded calls, no WILCOM entry) | State: Task Force practices justified actions | Cornelius: nonstandard procedures and inconsistent testimony undermine reliability of State’s account | Court: Credibility problems and procedural omissions weighed against State; supported suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunter v. State, 783 A.2d 558 (Del. 2001) (State bears burden to justify warrantless search)
- Tatman v. State, 494 A.2d 1249 (Del. 1985) (automobile exception permits warrantless vehicle searches when probable cause exists)
- Tann v. State, 21 A.3d 23 (Del. 2011) (Fourth Amendment protections for vehicle searches under Delaware law)
- State v. Prouse, 382 A.2d 1359 (Del. 1978) (traffic stops require reasonable suspicion)
- Caldwell v. State, 780 A.2d 1037 (Del. 2001) (limits on traffic-stop scope and requirement for independent justification for additional seizures)
- Law v. State, 185 A.3d 692 (Del. 2018) (probable cause may be supported by marijuana odor plus other factors)
- Valentine v. State, 207 A.3d 166 (Del. 2019) (odor of marijuana can contribute to probable-cause analysis when coupled with other circumstances)