State v. Harding, 1609020213

Police investigated suspected methamphetamine manufacturing at 202 Reeves Crossing Rd after observing Daniel Dilmore purchase Sudafed repeatedly and receiving a concerned-citizen tip that a woman (“D”) was cooking meth there.
An address-history check showed both Dilmore and Diane Hawkins had past connections to 202 and 210 Reeves Crossing Rd; affidavit did not describe the nature or timing of those histories.
Police conducted surveillance showing foot traffic between 202 and neighboring units (including 210); Hawkins was observed leaving 210, entering 202, then later meeting another person at Walmart where that person bought Sudafed.
Officers pulled trash from a shared receptacle serving three single-wide homes and found one sealed bag containing items consistent with meth manufacture plus a receipt bearing Dilmore’s name and 202 address, linking the contraband bag to 202.
Based on the affidavit the magistrate issued warrants for both 202 and 210; execution at 210 yielded 502.76 grams of marijuana and weapons and Harding was arrested.
Harding moved to suppress, arguing the warrant for 210 lacked probable cause because there was no nexus between criminal activity at 202 and evidence at the separate 210 residence; the court granted the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Harding)	Held
Whether the warrant for 210 Reeves Crossing Rd was supported by probable cause	Affidavit created nexus via: (1) trash pull from communal bin (drug-manufacture items), (2) address histories linking suspects to 210, and (3) substantial foot traffic between 202 and 210 including Hawkins’ movements	No facts linked criminal activity or drug-manufacture evidence to 210; activity was innocent and insufficient to establish a fair probability evidence would be at 210	Court: Warrant lacked probable cause; suppressed evidence seized at 210

LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103 (Del. 2008) (review of magistrate probable-cause determination under totality-of-circumstances with deference)
Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288 (Del. 2006) (affidavit must link items sought to place to be searched)
Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280 (Del. 2008) (combination of wholly innocent factors cannot constitute suspicion absent concrete reasons)
United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (prudential approach encouraging deference to magistrates to promote warrant applications)
Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (mere proximity or association to suspected persons does not alone establish probable cause for a search)