State v. Fax
1610017030
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jun 2, 2017Background
- Defendant Charles Fax was on Level III probation for drug dealing and tested positive for marijuana on October 11, 2016; supervising officer followed up but did not file a violation report or refer him to treatment.
- On October 26, 2016, a Governor's Task Force probation officer (Tuohey) ran a self-initiated DACS electronic search of Level III probationers in the 19702 zip code due to inclement weather and short staffing, found Fax's file (including the October 11 positive test), and sought supervisor approval to conduct an administrative search.
- After a telephonic case conference with his supervisor, officers executed an evening administrative search of Fax's residence; a nephew admitted recent marijuana use, officers detected marijuana odor, and they discovered scales, marijuana ashes, and quantities of heroin and cocaine.
- Fax and his co-defendant were indicted for drug offenses; Fax moved to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful administrative search.
- The State argued the fifteen-day-old positive urine test, together with the case conference, supplied reasonable suspicion and that Procedure 7.19 was substantially complied with; the court disagreed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a warrantless administrative search of Fax’s home | A 15-day-old positive drug screen plus supervisor case conference provided reasonable suspicion to search | The single, isolated positive test and lack of corroborating facts did not create reasonable suspicion tied to the residence | Court: No reasonable suspicion; search unlawful and evidence suppressed |
| Whether Procedure 7.19 was followed sufficiently to validate the search | Substantial compliance via a case conference satisfied Procedure 7.19 | The DACS-initiated search and checklist review without corroboration failed the Procedure’s forward-looking, fact-based assessment requirement | Court: Procedure 7.19 was not meaningfully satisfied given lack of corroboration/pre-search nexus |
| Legitimacy of self-initiated/random DACS searches by probation officers | Such DACS queries are acceptable to identify probationers for administrative searches | Random DACS queries without corroborative facts are effectively fishing expeditions and incompatible with Fourth Amendment limits on searches | Court: Practice is troubling and cannot substitute for particularized, objective reasonable suspicion |
| Remedy for unlawfully conducted administrative search | Evidence should be admissible because officers acted in good faith reliance on supervisory approval | Evidence is fruit of unlawful search and must be suppressed under Fourth Amendment principles | Court: Suppressed seized evidence as fruit of unlawful search |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entry generally presumptively unreasonable)
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (probationers have diminished but not eliminated privacy rights; regulatory schemes can permit warrantless searches)
- United States v. Arvizu, 543 U.S. 266 (reasonable-suspicion totality-of-the-circumstances analysis)
- Sierra v. State, 958 A.2d 825 (Del. 2008) (Delaware requires reasonable suspicion for probationer residence searches)
- Culver v. State, 956 A.2d 5 (Del. 2008) (past failed drug tests, without more, insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Pendleton v. State, 990 A.2d 417 (probation officer duties include rehabilitation as well as enforcement)
- Wheeler v. State, 135 A.3d 282 (context on general-warrant concerns and limits on searches)