State v. Friend
1602017442
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- DSP obtained a warrant to search 79 Terry Drive (the residence) and “all outbuildings including but not limited to a wooden shed” after a reliable CI and controlled buys implicated Antwan Seney in cocaine sales at the residence.
- The supporting affidavit described controlled purchases at the house and contained general police training/experience statements that traffickers hide contraband in secure locations within their residence or business; it did not mention the shed or other outbuildings specifically.
- Police executed the warrant and found Deshawn Friend in the rear shed; a search of the shed produced 715 bags of heroin and Friend was arrested.
- Friend moved to suppress the shed evidence, arguing the affidavit failed to establish a nexus between the alleged drug activity and the shed (no probable cause for the outbuilding).
- The court found probable cause to search the residence but held, under Delaware precedent (Bradley and related decisions), that a separate nexus is required for each detached building searched on a property and the affidavit contained no facts linking the shed to criminal activity.
- Result: suppression of the evidence recovered from the shed; Friend’s motion to suppress GRANTED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Friend) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant supported searching the shed (outbuilding) | The affidavit showed probable cause for the residence and general assertions about where traffickers hide contraband; that nexus extends to curtilage/outbuildings authorized in the warrant. | The affidavit lacked any facts linking illegal activity or contraband to the shed; no independent nexus within the four corners to justify searching that outbuilding. | The warrant lacked a sufficient nexus to the shed; search of shed unconstitutional and evidence suppressed. |
| Standing to challenge the shed search | N/A (State initially argued Friend lacked standing) | Friend had a reasonable expectation of privacy (listed residence and had been sleeping in the shed) and thus standing. | Friend had standing to challenge the search. |
| Whether affidavit was stale, conclusory, or uncorroborated | The CI-controlled buys in February 2016 and ongoing CI information were recent and corroborated; affidavit thus timely and reliable. | Argued affidavit was stale/unsupported (not persuasively developed in briefing). | Affidavit was not stale, conclusory, or uncorroborated as to the residence. |
| Whether Delaware Constitution requires a stricter nexus than the Fourth Amendment | State suggested no additional protection beyond established nexus rules. | Friend argued Delaware Constitution imposes stricter nexus requirement. | Court found no additional Delaware nexus standard beyond federal approach but applied Delaware precedent (Bradley) requiring a separate nexus for each detached building. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradley v. State, 51 A.3d 423 (Del. 2012) (requires independent nexus analysis for each detached outbuilding on a property and rejects extending residence nexus to all buildings)
- Wheeler v. State, 135 A.3d 282 (Del. 2016) (discusses Delaware Constitution protections and rejects general warrants; informs scope of permissible searches)
- Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807 (Del. 2000) (articulates nexus requirement: affidavit must permit a judicial officer to reasonably conclude seizable items would be found at a particular place)
- Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288 (Del. 2006) (four-corners review of warrant affidavits; standards for probable cause and particularity)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause in search warrant affidavits)