Ways v. State, 199 A.3d 101

Police investigated Ways and an associate for a year for large-scale heroin/cocaine trafficking; a confidential informant said Ways used a blue Jeep Cherokee with a hidden compartment.
A Delaware judge issued a warrant authorizing installation/use of a mobile tracking device (MTD) to be installed in Delaware on the jeep; the warrant said installation was to occur in Delaware but contained no express geographic tracking limit.
Officers installed the MTD in Delaware and used it plus physical surveillance on November 4, 2016; they followed the jeep into New Jersey, lost and regained visual surveillance there, then followed it back toward Delaware.
While the jeep was in New Jersey the State obtained a separate search warrant authorizing a search of the jeep upon its expected return to Delaware; that affidavit relied on physical surveillance and controlled purchases and did not rely solely on out-of-state MTD data.
Police stopped and searched the jeep in Dover, Delaware, and found ~1,300 grams of heroin in a hidden compartment; Ways was charged with aggravated possession, drug dealing, and second-degree conspiracy.
On appeal Ways argued (1) suppression was required because the MTD tracking in New Jersey exceeded the Delaware warrant and lacked New Jersey authorization, and (2) the State failed to prove venue for each charged offense; the Superior Court denied suppression and denied judgment of acquittal, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression of evidence from out-of-state MTD tracking	Ways: out-of-state MTD monitoring exceeded the Delaware warrant and amounted to a warrantless search in New Jersey absent NJ authorization; suppression required	State: even if out-of-state tracking was improper, the search warrant that produced the heroin did not rely on that tracking and the evidence was inevitably discoverable	Denied suppression: court applied inevitable-discovery—jeep would have been relocated and searched in Delaware based on physical surveillance, bridge units, and MTD alerts upon re-entry
Motion for judgment of acquittal (venue)	Ways: State failed to prove venue as to each charged offense under 11 Del. C. § 232; conviction cannot stand without venue proven for every count	State: under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 18, if one joined offense occurred in the trial county, venue is proper for all joined offenses; evidence supported that the conspiracy occurred in Sussex County	Denied acquittal: venue proven because conspiracy (Count 3) occurred at least in part in Sussex County, making venue proper for all joined counts under Rule 18

Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280 (Del.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Rollins, 922 A.2d 379 (Del.) (deference to trial court factual findings on suppression)
Burrell v. State, 953 A.2d 957 (Del.) (review of legal application de novo)
Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982 (Del.) (definition and application of inevitable-discovery exception)
Cline v. State, 720 A.2d 891 (Del.) (standard for judgment of acquittal review)
Thornton v. State, 405 A.2d 126 (Del.) (venue may be established by inference)