State v. Morris
1706015581
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Defendant Rodney Morris was suspected by police and a proven confidential informant (CI) of selling crack cocaine from a bicycle and living at 322 Cecil Street, Dover, DE.
- Officers observed Morris leave the Residence on a bicycle, engage in a hand‑to‑hand transaction with Mahdi Wilson on Mary Street, then return to the Residence.
- Officers stopped Wilson, who fled; he was arrested and found with crack cocaine.
- A search warrant for the Residence was obtained based on an affidavit recounting the CI tip, officers’ observations (relayed by fellow officers), and officers’ training/experience about where traffickers hide contraband.
- Morris moved to suppress, arguing the warrant affidavit relied on stale/unreliable CI information, hearsay, insufficient proof that the transaction was illegal, and no nexus between the transaction and the Residence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Morris's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliance on hearsay in affidavit | Hearsay came from fellow officers; collective knowledge and officer reliability justify reliance | Affidavit lacked affiants’ personal observations; hearsay alone insufficient | Court: Hearsay from fellow officers acceptable; affidavit not defective because it contained detailed officer observations and was creditable |
| CI tip reliability / staleness | CI was previously proven reliable; tip (bicycle sales, crack) corroborated by later observations | Tip was six months old, generic, and did not link Residence to drug activity | Court: Tip alone insufficient for searching Residence but corroborated officers’ observations and was not stale for observed transaction |
| Sufficiency of observed conduct (hand‑to‑hand, flight, contraband on Wilson) to show criminal activity | Combined observations, Wilson’s flight, and drugs on Wilson provided a substantial basis that an illegal drug transaction occurred | Transaction not a controlled buy; affidavit didn’t explicitly say it was a drug sale | Court: Common‑sense reading of totality supported probable cause that a drug transaction occurred despite lack of a controlled buy |
| Nexus between alleged criminal activity and Residence | Morris left and returned directly to the Residence; typical inference that traffickers store contraband at home supports nexus | CI did not tie Residence to drug activity; no direct evidence items were at the Residence | Court: Direct travel before/after transaction and officers’ experience created sufficient nexus to support search warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for probable cause)
- Ventresca v. New York, 380 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1965) (magistrate may rely on affidavits; hearsay from officers can be reliable)
- Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1960) (hearsay affidavits not automatically insufficient if a substantial basis for crediting exists)
- State v. Sisson, 883 A.2d 868 (Del. Super. 2005) (defendant bears burden on suppression of warrant)
- State v. Cooley, 457 A.2d 352 (Del. 1983) (collective knowledge of police may be imputed to an individual officer)