Dorsey v. State

Superior Court’s We conclude postconviction

denial of Weeks’ motion judgment af-

relief correct and Our affirmance renders moot

firmed. stay

Weeks’ motion for of execution under 35(e).

Rule DORSEY, Defendant

James

Below, Appellant, Delaware,

STATE of Plaintiff

Below, Appellee.

Nos.

Supreme Court of Delaware. April

Submitted:

Decided: Oct.

HOLLAND, Justice, for majority. defendant-appellant, Dorsey, James charged with Murder in the First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony and Posses- sion of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited. Following jury trial Superior Court, Dorsey was convicted on all charges. Dorsey filed a Motion for a New grounds Trial on the prosecutorial mis- conduct and inadmissible evidence. The Superior granted Dorsey’s motion with respect to two convictions: Murder the First Degree and Possession of a Fire- arm During Felony. Commission of a This is Dorsey’s direct from the appeal judgment final charge of conviction on the by Possession of a Firearm a Person Prohibited. Dorsey contends that the Su- perior Court erroneously denied his Mo- tion Suppress the State’s use of the firearms as According evidence. to Dor- sey, the warrant that authorized a search of his weapons automobiles for those not supported by probable cause viola- tion of his under the Delaware Con- stitution applicable statutes. This Court has concluded that the war- rant to search Dorsey’s automobiles was issued without a demonstration of cause. protection against unreason- able searches per- that is afforded to all sons the Delaware Constitution re- quires the suppression illegally seized items as evidence. Accordingly, Dorsey’s conviction for Possession of a Firearm a Potter, Stephen B. Jennifer-Kate Aar- Person Prohibited must be reversed. onson, Potter, Leonard, P.A., Carmine & Delaware, Wilmington, Balick, Adam Bal- Facts Balick, Delaware, ick & Wilmington, for 14, 1996, August On p.m., Dorsey 4:05 appellant. request called 911 to police and ambulance Peggy Hageman, Cynthia J. Kelsey, R. Street, assistance at 615 W. 5th Wilming Justice, Department of Wilmington, Dela- City ton. of Wilmington police officers ware, appellee. responded body found the of Frank VEASEY, Justice, Before Chief upstairs Williams ap bedroom. It WALSH, HOLLAND, peared HARTNETT and had single Williams suffered a BERGER, (constituting gun Justices the Court shot wound to the head. Police Banc). en searched the immediate area but failed to IV, sitting by designation pursu- Retired Justice ant to Delaware Constitution art. bleeding his prone in room Dor borders [sic] then interviewed gun. locate Police that he owned the sey, who indicated from head. and rented a room Williams.

building the crime scene 3. Police checked building housed or five other four victim, tentatively ID’d appeared tenants. Williams, single suffered as Frankie day, police applied that same for Later head, killing him. gun shot wound to for the and received search warrant crime 4. A of the immediate check known The premises as 615 W. 5thStreet. weapon, not locate the be- scene did application for that search warrant indicat to an hand- police the items the wanted lieved unknown caliber ed to “an caliber hand search for were unknown gun. “any clothing and gun and ammunition” identify to attempting Police are still presence to appeared

items that have the all tenants of the present and interview The of blood.” warrant also indicated according to land- residence which police “processing would be ... the house 4-5 tenants. lord houses evidence, to include physical for but [sic], videotaping, photo’s limited to: latent police In a statement to James Dor- any may prints, and other evidence which to sey attempted that he contact related investigation assist in the the death of past two Williams numerous times The police Frankie Williams.” executed success. He then related days, without premises the search warrant for the at adjacent entry through that he forced approximately p.m. 6:00 That search war find the victim. room to appeal. rant is not an in this issue A warrant was executed search executing While still the search warrant on this date and as the crime scene premises for the as 615 5th described W. can located. writing this a firearm not be Street, police applied for obtained a second warrant to search two automo asked to consent Dorsey 8. James biles, Dodge a 1986 600 and a Cad testing and gunshot/metal residue illac two were DeVille. The automobiles then that his consented. He was asked registered Dorsey. owned That for evidence vehicles be checked subject search warrant is the matter of this crime and refused. appeal. two process Police now wish to vehi- In the affidavit for the warrant to search Dorsey located registered cles to James vehicles, Dorsey’s police alleged scene, in to the crime proximity close support facts following in. Montgomery. block Police the 400 cause: evi- potential physical wish secure 96 at hours the Aug On crime. dence of this Wilmington to a Police were summoned Street, shooting at 615 5th scene W. wanted application police indicated the incident docu-

Wilmington, DE. This clothing or items that “any to search for under Police Case Wilmington mented presence of blood” to have the appeared # 96-19754. handgun.” “an caliber unknown ap- Upon arrival officers were warrant executed search subject who identified proached approximately 7:50 the two vehicles-at property, as the owner of the himself De- from the 1989 Cadillac p.m. Seized Dorsey. Dorsey that this James related (1) a following items: Smith Ville were he returned from an out afternoon had (2) Harrington Special; and Wesson .38 trip. He related that he houses (3) a Special; Arms .38 Richardson in his as bor- multiple people property (4) pho- ammunition and Special of .38 box Upon checking residence [sic]. ders of the vehicle. he he one of tos related that found Suppress Motion to Dorsey whether had less of driven either day. automobile It also reason- Dorsey a Motion Suppress filed Dorsey, to infer that able had he shot pursuant evidence was seized Williams, might then have hidden the warrant to search issued his two vehicles. weapon murder in an automobile located Superior hearing Court held a on the nearby to which Suppression Motion over he had access.2 the course days. three Sup- different At the initial analysis, foregoing Based on the the Supe- pression Hearing, argued the State rior Court concluded that warrant search vehicles Dorsey’s Dorsey’s sup- automobiles was within established the four corners of by an ported establishing affidavit proba- or, alternative, if affidavit Therefore, Superior ble cause. failed, search warrant a warrantless search Dorsey’s Suppress denied Motion to the of Dorsey’s vehicles was valid pursuant during evidence seized the execution of the exception. automobile the Sup- When that warrant. pression Hearing resumed a few weeks later, argument the State withdrew the Delaware Search Warrants that probable Dorsey’s cause to search provides The Delaware Constitution that vehicles existed outside of affidavit. the a warrant search cannot be issued “unless Accordingly, Superior the consid- probable by cause supported there be oath ered and on the ruled sole issue of whether or affirmation.”3 the support affidavit in war- the search probable rant established cause. people 6. The be secure in Section shall houses, persons, pos- papers their Superior Court issued a de- written sessions, from unreasonable searches Dorsey’s cision denying Sup- Motion seizures; press. Superior The rationale for and no to search the warrant Court’s was as ruling follows: any or any place, person to seize or shall

Although thing, the affidavit the issue without supporting describing search for Dorsey’s be; warrant two auto- may as particularly them as nor mobiles specifically does then, probable unless there be cause Dorsey suspect a in death the affirmation.4 by supported oath or Williams, are in there sufficient facts the the Section 2306 of Title warrant to infer that the such was case. prescribes specific statutory Code re- Dorsey Police the stated affidavit that quirements by that were promulgated the told body Police he had discovered the Assembly in furtherance of the General entry forcing into Williams’ room. Delaware Constitution’s Dorsey Police told he had been out of provision: returning try- town and since had been application complaint for or a ing to Williams. contact in writing, search warrant shall be that, although The Court finds signed by the and verified complainant affidavit not specifically does state facts oath or It shall by his affirmation. des- support belief that gun a used house, conveyance ignate place, or or shooting bloody clothing items of to be person searched and owner or car, would Dorsey’s be found is (if occupant any), thereof and shall de- cause, given reasonable to infer things sought or as persons scribe the nature of the crime items and the be, may and shall sub- particularly as sought by very proximity Police. stantially for allege the cause which the provid- automobiles residence concealment, opportunity regard- ed or committed search made the offense Const, Dorsey, Del.Super., 2. State v. I.D. No. art. Del. 1997) (Aug. WL 528273 Order). (Op. and affidavit insures things magistrate or a written persons or relation to the for, may court determine reviewing and shall state that searched such complainant suspects persons requirements whether the constitutional house, things or concealed faded upon met reliance have been conveyance person designated or place, confused memories.”9 and often upon and shall recite the facts which in sup affidavit Consequently, the suspicion such founded.5 warrant must set forth port of a search judicial officer to Section 2307 authorizes judicial officer adequate for a neutral facts issue a warrant: belief that an offense to form a reasonable justice peace or judge, If committed and that seizable has been re- magistrate other finds that facts in a particular would be found property proba- cited constitute complaint person.10 “This particular or on place search, person ble cause for the hyperteehnical ap Court has eschewed any proper offi- may direct warrant war of the search proach to evaluation person by cer or to other name for in favor of a common-sense rant affidavit designate service. The warrant shall Accordingly, we have interpretation.”11 house, conveyance place, person or supporting affidavit held that “the searched, shall describe as a warrant must be ‘considered things persons sought particularly separate the whole and not on basis possible, may be made returnable ”12 allegations.’ any judge, justice peace before the or magistrate before whom it shall also di- Defícient Affidavits thing to brought rect be the or person to search Dor Probable cause found, if in person searched for the if exists the affidavit sey’s two automobiles custody possession person whose or such found, permit an im sets forth facts that would thing or to be dealt with ac- reasonably con cording partial judicial to law.6 officer to the be found sought clude that items would consistently This Court has held determining in those locations.13 that 2306 and contemplate Sections cause has been demon probable whether probable “four-corners” test cause.7 strated, logical there must be a nexus standard, Pursuant that time honored sought place and the between the items appear sufficient facts must on the face of Accordingly, when this be searched.14 appellate the affidavit so that an court can if Court reviews the affidavit determine verify judicial factual the basis for Dorsey’s probable cause existed to search regarding officer’s determination exis “any clothing or items that vehicles for probable require tence of cause.8 “The of blood” appeared presence all to have upon by ment facts relied State, Del.Supr., 567 A.2d § v. 5. 11 Del.C. 11. Gardner State, (1989); Del.Supr., v. Jensen § 6. 11 Del.C. A.2d State, Del.Supr., 7. Pierson v. 338 A.2d State, (quoting 567 A.2d at 409 12. Gardner v. State, 111). v. 482 A.2d at See Jensen Dunfee (1975); Id. State, Del.Supr., 346 v. A.2d 703; State, at Rossitto v. v. 320 A.2d Edwards Acosta, (quoting Id. United States v. State, Del.Supr., 439-40 Cir., (1974)). 501 F.2d 1330 Accord Hen- 5th ry v. State, Del.Supr., 416 A.2d 13. Hooks (1980) . 2306; Del. 11 Del.C. Edwards (1974); Supr., 320 A.2d Wilson Del.Supr., 314 A.2d 906-07 request and “an handgun,” unknown caliber but refused to search his vehi- information set forth within the affidavit’s cles. The ninth paragraph, any corners, four inference logical attempt why further to explain evidence from the facts must dem- specific alleged, reasonably expected would to be found why states; onstrate objectively reasonable vehicles, Dorsey’s simply police expect for the items find the police process Dorsey’s “wish” to two ve- ” sought locations.15 those potential hicles and “wish to secure case,

In Dorsey’s physical evidence of crime. four corners affidavit not comport do with Section Superior The Court’s written decision requirement 2306’s that the “re- complaint that “the does not spe- concluded affidavit cite why the facts” the items would sought cifically support state facts to a belief that Dorsey’s be found in vehicles.16 When the shooting used gun bloody nine paragraphs the four corners clothing in Dorsey’s items of would be parsed affidavit are is no seriatim, there 17 Nevertheless, Superior car.” logical judi- deductive basis for a neutral “the cause from nature inferred cial determination that there sought of the crime and the items cause to bloody clothing believe either Court did police.”18 Superior or a hand would be gun Dorsey’s found in inference on information base that con- vehicles. The first Dor- paragraph states tained within the four corners of the affi- sey police called the to report the crime. davit, however, but instead based that in- paragraph Dorsey second recites that its own prior on ference inference arrive, waited for the identified police suspected Dorsey. Superior himself premises, as the owner of the ex- speculated Dorsey then did if circumstances, plained reported Williams, might shoot he have hidden the multiple there were boarders his nearby weapon murder one of his auto- property. The third paragraph provides mobiles. police that checked scene the crime and single found the victim had a sustained prob Probable cause to gun shot to wound the head. The fourth to fungible legal able cause arrest are not paragraph recounts that were police distinctly and each a concepts, involves unable a weapon to locate at immedi- separate inquiry. probable focus ate crime The fifth paragraph rep- scene. i.e., upon “place”, cause to search is a police trying resents that the were still to will whether contraband or evidence be identify and interview all of ten- the other particular found in a location. The focus ants. paragraph The sixth reflects that probable upon cause to is a “per arrest Dorsey entry stated he forced into i.e., son”, whether a criminal offense has Williams’ room because he tried to had being person been or is committed days contact Williams for two suc- to be arrested. cess. that paragraph reports The seventh Whitner, year Earlier Third had executed a search warrant “probable Circuit reiterated that cause to premises yet for the entire and had automatically provide arrest does not located eighth paragraph a firearm. The cause Dorsey probable to search arrestee’s voluntarily states that to consented gunshot be tested for and metal residue home.” Third Circuit based that State, 409; v. Gardner v. Hooks 18. Id. 567 A.2d at 203; Jensen v. 110-11; Henry A.2d at Whitner, Cir., 19. United States 219 F.3d 3d (2000) (quoting United States Jones, Cir., (1993)). 994 F.2d 3d 16. 11 Del.C. Dorsey, 17. State v. I.D. No. 1, 1997) Order). (Aug. (Op. WL 528273 automobiles. suspect’s home or legal search that on the well-established dis-

holding Nevertheless, if argues that even the State are direct- tinction that “search warrants if an arrestee and even ed, Dorsey was not persons, property but at where not at Superior suspect, “the Dorsey was not cause to believe that probable there is a murder reasonably inferred that of crime will Court instrumentalities or evidence Jones, likely is weapon missing from crime In the Third Circuit be found.”20 however, parked in an automobile “although that be concealed acknowledged, registered close to the scene and proximity cause to not automat- probable arrest does first located dece- person who ically probable cause to search provide argument is not the home, dent.” The State’s probable the fact that defendant’s deductive orderly logical of an product in- cause to arrest has been established process. probability that the defendant creases in the storing

is evidence of crime knowledge held firsthand This Court has defendant’s residence.”21 ap- items in a warrant that the identified place applica- plication actually located support The affidavit in of the always required in an Dorsey’s does not is not tion to search vehicles searched Dorsey to establish had been arrested even affidavit cause.24 addition, no committing any require- we have held there is suspected that he was Superior property that the owner of the crime. The the ment inferred suspected is police thought Dorsey a criminal searched or seized even Instead, this Court has suspect they because “wished” to search criminal activity25 whether, question as based Assuming arguendo his framed the vehicles. within the Dorsey, upon specific alleged facts police “suspected” both affidavit, one would four States Constitution Delaware Consti- corners find items at that require impartial judicial normally expect tution officer those so, is cause “If inference will assess whether there then that place.26 to conduct As the United valid of a to allow the issuance suffice search.22 has explained, It search warrant place.”27 purpose of the Dela- [and it is illogical argue for the State requirement of dem- Constitution’s ware’s] expect “normal” to find murder onstrating probable deny not to from crime scene con- weapon missing support law enforcement officers the person first in the automobile cealed usual inferences which reasonable individ- body. to a murder victim’s discover evidence, objective uals from but to draw No Probable Cause require by those to drawn a inferences be judicial detached officer rather than the case, Dorsey’s the four corners of the In police officer.23 in- warrant affidavit contained no judicial impartial from an If formation which cause to arrest does not probable reasonably logi- automatically probable officer could conclude provide cause to home, cally probable infer that search the arrestee’s then a there fortiori related a that evidence suspect that someone is believe inference boarding of the Williams’ death inside probable does not constitute cause to 189, State, Conley, Del.Supr., (quoting 24. v. 416 A.2d 20. v. 3d Hooks Id. United States Cir., 1200, (1993)). F.3d 1207 203 4 150, Jones, State, Boardley Del.Supr., v. 25. 21. States v. 994 F.2d 1055- United (1992) Daily, (citing Zurcher v. 56. Stanford L.Ed.2d 525 98 S.Ct. 436 U.S. (1978)). Hayden, Warden v. 301- See S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d A.2d at 203. Hooks States, U.S. 13- United Johnson L.Ed. 436 68 S.Ct. Dorsey’s house would found in of the Bill of image Rights.35 one of federal Con- two parked vehicles on the street. Since sequently, judges Delaware cannot faith- the warrant search Dorsey’s fully discharge vehicles the responsibilities of their was issued without a simply holding demonstration office that the Declara- cause, probable Dorsey’s Rights we hold that tion I of Article the Delaware I, rights under Article necessarily Section 6 Constitution is step” “lock Delaware Constitution and stat- applicable Supreme with the United States Court’s utes were violated. We now address the construction of the Bill Rights.36 federal remedy for those violations. Sanders, In this stated Court that it was to argue untenable the State Sovereignty Dual must mean exactly Constitution consistently This has held thing the same as the United States Con- that required exclusion of evidence is the stitution.37 The reason for that has been remedy for a violation of the Delaware succinctly by set forth protection against Constitution’s searches Supreme Court: courts “State have avail- and probable seizures without cause.29 able to them for decision number of The State argues adopt we should constitutions, sources—state statutes and United interpreta States Court’s common law—which are available to tion of exclusionary the federal rule in Sanders, explained In oper- us.”38 we Leon30and construe Delaware Consti dual sovereignty ation of under the United tution permit the use of at trial evidence Constitution: States cause, was seized without if Although bound together Delaware is faith had a belief that there forty-nine with the States in other an cause.31 To reach that re union, it indivisible federal remains a sult, asking State is this sovereign governed its own overrule one every prior opinions of its shaped by unique laws and own heri- construing rule under the An tage. examination those laws and Delaware Constitution.32 time, heritage may, from time to

“The lead to the Constitution conclusion Delaware’s system sovereignty: enjoy establishes á of dual more rights, citizens more consti- government govern federal protections, tutional than the Federal ments.” Each member' of the Delaware to them. If Constitution extends we judiciary an oath support takes “to were hold that Constitution our defend my both the Constitution coun simply image mirror the Federal Constitution, try my [United States] [Delaw State we would be relinquishing Rights important are].”34 The Declaration incident of State’s sov- sense, the Delaware mirror ereignty. very not a real Dela- §§ 28. 11 Del.C. Claudio (1991). 1289 State, Del.Supr., 29. Rickards v. 77 A.2d 199 (1950); State, formulation, Del.Supr., changes lockstep Jones v. 745 A.2d 36. "Under the (1999). by law 856 or clarification of federal the United Supreme parallel lead States Court Leon, 897, changes 30. United v. in state law.” Earl M. States 468 U.S. 104 3405, Maltz, (1984). Prophet S.Ct. False Brennan and the 82 L.Ed.2d 677 —Justice Law, Theory State Constitutional 15 Has- of Const.L.Q., 429, (1988). tings 31. 437-38 See, State, State, 204; e.g., Del.Supr., 32. Rickards v. 77 at 37. v. 585 A.2d Sanders (1999). (1990). Del.Supr., Jones v. 745 A.2d 856 144 Director, Department 33. 745 A.2d v. Jones v. at 866. Missouri Cruzan of Health, S.Ct. 497 U.S. 110 111 Const, XIV, (1990). 34. Del. art. 224 L.Ed.2d

815 History Constitutional Delaware than ware would become less of State recognize States who the inde- sister Jones, year, in this the last Within significance their pendent of Constitu- whether the search and had decide has Subject to the limits of the tions. Su- Constitu- language the Delaware seizure Clause, premacy argue no one would thing the United means the same as tion Assembly not that our General should Supreme construction of Court’s subjects on legislate such as environ- Amendment of language similar Fourth merely protection mental because Con- In an- the United States Constitution.43 gress Similarly, has done so. gave compre- judicial swering question, we State’s branch should interpreting foreclosed from our Consti- of the historical scholarly hensive account merely tution because the United States and provi- in the search seizure differences interpreted has Supreme Court similar and sions provisions of the Federal Constitution.39 Constitution.44 adoption Until the of the Fourteenth original Delaware Constitution and Bill Amendment the federal of Rights Declaration of were Rights protected rights solely individual two September approximately 1776— against gov- encroachment the federal Indepen- months the Declaration of after Thereafter, ernment.40 the United States years and the federal dence fifteen before began to hold that selected repeated Rights. primary Bill of and provisions Rights of the federal Bill of also of expressed concern Declaration against protection afforded state action King ei- was that had Independence of virtue Due Process Clause American ther denied violated the Fourteenth Accordingly, Amendment.41 Consequently, rights English citizens. Independence from the Declaration un- constitutions virtually all of first state War, til after the Civil state Declarations provisions45 dealing with explicit contained primary guarantors Rights were of En- reception or limited against and the retention individual civil liberties infringement by government.42 glish law46 and included Declara- common Amar, (citations (1981); Akhil R. 585 A.2d The Bill Sanders Liberties omitted). Amendment, Rights the Fourteenth Curtis, (1992); L.J. 1193 Michael K. Yale Pet.) 243, Baltimore, (7 Barron Rights, Amendment and the Bill Fourteenth Gunther, Fairman, L.Ed. 672 See Gerald (1982); Con Charles 14 Conn.L.Rev. (11th ed.1985); stitutional Law 422-40 see Incorporate the Fourteenth Amendment Does Abrahamson, Shirley S. (1949); Divided We Rights?, Stan.L.Rev. Bill Henkin, Stand: State Constitutions in More Louis Incorporation” in the “Selective Perfect Const.L.Q. Union, Hastings 727-38 Amendment, 73 Yale L.J. Fourteenth (1991); Mosk, Stanley State Constitutional Conservative, Tex. ism: Both Liberal (1985); L.Rev. G. 1081-82 Stewart Pol Pitler, Pre- F. Utter & Sanford E. Robert lock, Adequate Independent as a Grounds Argument: senting a Com- State Constitutional Balancing Relationship Between Means of 20 Ind.L .Rev. Theory Technique, on ment Courts, 63 Tex.L.Rev. State and Federal State, Jones Const, ("... nor 41. U.S. amend. XIV shall life, deprive any person liberty, State law”). process property, without of or due Id. at 864-67. incorporation regarding For the discussions Rights the of the federal Bill of into Due Florida, 45. Seminole Tribe Florida v. Amendment, Process Clause of the Fourteenth of 44, 137, 134 L.Ed.2d 116 S.Ct. U.S. (1996) states, making thereby applicable them to the J., (Souter, dissenting). Cortner, see Richard C. Supreme Court The Rights: Fourteenth and the Second Bill of n. S.Ct. 1114. Id. at 162 the Civil Amendment and Nationalization of of Rights, upon tions often in adopted practice based common heretofore in this state, force, shall remain they unless law antecedents.47 shall be altered future law of the Revolution, Prior to the many American Legislature; parts only such as excepted attorneys colonial aspiring traveled to are repugnant privi- and study London to the Middle Temple law at leges in this contained and constitution one or of the English other Inns of of rights, declaration & c. agreed legal Court.48 After their studies were by this convention.50 completed, those individuals returned from Delaware the first search and sei- practice in colonial London law America. protections zure its citizens Septem- he When was Chief of Justice the United ber of 1776 part of the of Declaration Court, William H. Taft— Rights and Fundamental De- Rules of the previously of President laware State: States —wrote the Foreword to a book en- That all warrants without oath to search titled “American Members the Inns of of suspected or to places any person seize According Court.” to Chief Justice Taft: grievous op- or his are property, and This book of the proof contains instill- pressive; general all warrants to and ing all the communities of the Colo- places, or suspected appre- nies of the principles of the Common suspected, hend all persons taught Law as Inns of naming describing place Court and or person illegal ought and special, decision of the English granted.51 Judges.... Many of the law officers of the Colonies ... studied in [had Lon- authorship of primary Delaware’s at Temple, don] either the Middle of Declaration Rights traditionally Temple, Inner Inn or ascribed to Thomas Gray’s Lincoln’s McKean, lawyer signatory Delaware Inn. When the Revolution [American] Independence.52 of It is Declaration on, legal atmosphere came of every interesting to note Thomas McKean community permeated with the English had studied the common law principles and of the methods the Com- London, Middle where he Temple mon lawyers Law. So it was that the of was a contemporary of William Black- part Revolution who told [American] stone.53 In the third volume of his author- in the formation of the new Government Eng- itative on the Commentaries Laws of brought to great task—a deep' re- land, “it Blackstone wrote: is a settled for, of, spect knowledge and a close principle England, invariable laws of Law.49 Common withheld, that every right, when must have Article 25 of 1776 Constitution Delaware’s every injury re- remedy, proper provided: view, logical dress.” it is to infer our The common England, law of as well as that by adopting existing specifically much so law England, statute as have been common law of the framers of Peters, Constitutions, 47. Ellen A. Law State Common Antecedents Or.L.Rev. (1995). Connecticut, Constitutional Law in 53 Alb. of L.Rev. (1989). Rights 51. Declaration and Fundamental Rules of the State Daniell, Timothy Tyndale Lawyers Lyden Macarrey, See also Sir Middle Holland, Randy De- J. Introduction to The Templars' with Association America 27 Century laware Bar in Twentieth xxviii al., eds., (Helen 1994). et L. Winslow Taft, 49. Chief Justice William H. Foreword to Lyden Macarrey, 53. Id. at Middle xxv. Sir Jones, E. Alfred American Members Templars’ (1998). with America Association Inns Court Const, Blackstone, 50. Del. art. XXV. See also 54. 3 William *109 Commentaries Hoffman, Madison, (1 By Jonathan F. the Course Marbury cited in Cranch) 137, 163, Origins Open Law: The Courts Clause 2 L.Ed. 60

817 infer, of in absence logical Declara- It is Constitution and Delaware’s first contrary, that John any Rights provisions there contemplated tion of of Dela- of the other framers remedy the violation the Dickinson and would be for con- intended to right illegal to be free from searches and ware’s Constitution common there law principle seizures.55 tinue for of remedy the violation must be Likewise, view, in our the framers of provi- right.60 vested Rights of Delaware’s first Declaration and present in the Delaware Constitution sion contemplate excusing Constitution did added in Rights and Declaration of right of search and seizure if violations When changed.61 has never been and “good in faith.” Article acted was added to probable cause element provided: of first constitution Delaware’s search warrants requirement oath rights article the declaration “No of of in Rights in of Delaware’s Declaration of ... ought fundamental rules this state right it was an enhancement of any pretence on ever to be violated what- against illegal and seizures searches “good ...”56 faith” Excusing ever viola- in set forth Delaware’s Constitution right to be free tions Rights. and Declaration of illegal from searches and seizures exact- ly type “pretence” that Article in Jones, this Court concluded expressly Delaware’s Constitution provi seizure history of the search and prohibited. in the Delaware Constitution re sions protections

The President of the 1792 Delaware and broader flected different those Fourth guaranteed Constitutional Convention was John Dick- than inson, original who search and had studied the common law of Amendment.62 Temple in Delaware Consti England provision the Middle in London seizure and, thus, preceded adoption with Thomas McKean was also a tution of the Fourth contemporary years orig fifteen William Blackstone.57 Amendment Pennsylvania During provision the 1787 debates over the like a inally similar States Constitution in Dickin- Philadelphia, itution.63 Const son in after the referred Blackstone’s Constitution was Commentar- post already ies to determine that the term “ex Fourth Amendment had been ” Nevertheless, only common law the 1792 Dela applied adopted.64 facto criminal follow the cases.58 When the 1792 Delaware ware Constitution continued to drafted, from the language Constitution was Dickinson was search and seizure than retaining Pennsylvania instrumental the common law rather right by jury Amendment.65 language trial “heretofore.”59 the Fourth Blackstone, Del.Supr., 55. A.2d 3 William Commentaries *109 59. Claudio v. Madison, (1991). Marbury (1 cited Cranch) 137, (1803). 2 L.Ed. 60 See also William Taft Chief Justice H. Foreword to E. Blackstone, Commentaries *109 3 William Alfred Jones American Members Inns Madison, (1 Marbury v. U.S. cited Cranch) 137, (1924). 2 L.Ed. 60 Const, 56. Del. art. XXX. State, Del.Supr., Jones 865-66 57. Johnson v. Nolan, See Dennis R. Sir Republic: Blackstone the New A William 745 A.2d at 865-66. Jones Study Impact. Intellectual 51 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 743 n. 63 at 865-67. Id. Nolan,

58. Dennis R. Sir William Blackstone Id. Study Republic: the New A Intellectual Impact. 745 n. 57 51 N.Y.U.L.Rev.

818

Delaware Constitutional duty conceive it the We the courts to

Exclusionary Rule protect guarantees. way protect most effective to the guar- exclusionary “The rule acts as . against antees unreasonable search and for a of a remedy violation defendant’s compulsory seizure self-incrimina- right illegal to free of searches and is to exclude from tion evidence It for provides seizures. the exclusion matter obtained a violation of them. of any from trial evidence recovered or long We believe that as [Dela- as the from an illegal derived search and seiz ware] [search Constitution contains the ure.”66 exclusionary rule in Dela guarantees seizure] citizen recognized ware was more than a decade to, referred we have no choice but use exclusionary before the federal rule was every disposal preserve means at our prosecutions,67 just extended as guarantees. those Since it is obvious the enactment of and seizure of such exclusion matters from provisions the Delaware Declaration of practical is the most protection, evidence Rights preceded adoption of corre1 adopt we It means. is no answer to provisions sponding in the federal Bill of say hampers the rule the task of Rights.68 prosecuting officer. If forced to Rickards, Fifty years ago, in the State the pros- choose between convenience to argued guaran- this Court that the ecutor and a deprivation constitution- tees Delaware’s un- against citizen, guarantees al we fact reasonable searches and not seizures “does have no choice.72 require evidence obtained violation of Consequently, construing the Delaware them sug- excluded.”69 State Constitution, this Court held that there are gested appropriate remedy state constitutional dimensions to the en- individuals whose had been violated exclusionary forcement rule. was not to have the evidence excluded at a Distinguished Leon trial, criminal but to file persons for those a civil against' action the official who had Rickards, years Ten after' the United invaded his or her Dela- rights under the exclusionary States Court held the federal ware Constitution.70 This Court concluded rule the States. applicable to “Since the prosecution “the efficient can- criminals right privacy Fourth Amendment’s has justify a deliberate invasion been declared enforceable against right citizen to be made secure through Due Process Clause of against specific Fourteenth, the violation of constitu- against enforceable guarantee’s, tional suggested them the same sanction of exclusion remedy of a civil practical action is as a against, the Federal Govern used 73 remedy Accordingly, matter no all.”71 ment.” The United States Court, however, we adopted, held: exclu federal Ohio, Mapp (citing Id. at 872 v. U.S. Del.Supr., 367 68. Rickards v. 77 A.2d 199 643, 1684, (1961); (1950); S.Ct. 81 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 Jones v. States, 471, 856, Wong v. Sun United 371 U.S. 83 865 407, (1963)). 9 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 441 69. Rickards v. 77 A.2d at 204. Ohio, Mapp 81 S.Ct. at 205. 6 Id. Mapp, L.Ed.2d 1081 Prior applicable only federal rule was Colorado, proceedings. in federal Id. Wolf (1949); U.S. 69 S.Ct. 93 L.Ed. 1782 States, Weeks v. S.Ct. U.S. (1914); Boyd L.Ed. v. United Ohio, 643, 645, States, Mapp U.S. U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. S.Ct. 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 against its unreason- protecting a different citizens sionary rule on the basis of not dimin- and seizures did able searches than basis this rationale the for Court’s of the Fourth adoption after the ish holding in Rickards.74 years, almost 150 For Amendment....”80 has Supreme The Court required has more Delaware statute the recognition of federal characterized its of a for issuance probable than cause exclusionary “judicially rule as a created to In addition nighttime search warrant.81 designed remedy safeguard to Fourth cause, a search war- nighttime probable generally through Amendment allege that it is requires affiant rant effect, rather than a personal deterrent or re- prevent escape “necessary to ag- of right party be search person thing of or moval “prime purpose” of grieved.”75 Mason, argued the State for.”82 In rule fu- exclusionary federal “is deter probable police demonstrated since the police ture unlawful conduct.”76 Accord- faith,” “good their cause and had acted Leon, ingly, the United States specific the enhanced failure to establish modified the federal statutory for issuance of requirements exception good faith rule include an for not re- nighttime search warrant should police reliance on a search warrant illegally seized sult the exclusion which later to be for lack of held invalid held: items evidence.83 This Court from probable cause.77 a “good If to find this Court were minority contends this Court circum- exception,” faith under adopt should overrule Rickards and case, doing so of this would stances “good exception Leon faith” “constru- did not in a situation where ing” in Dela- unambiguous mandate justifying a exigent have circumstances that no search warrant ware’s Constitution allege entry, failed to suffi- warrantless probable shall issue without cause.78 satisfy statutory re- cient facts suggestion that ratio- adopt we should of a quirements nighttime for a search present nale Leon does issue to receive a residence then failed Mason, impression. first its night- that concluded search warrant why, explained though even the Delaware necessary. To ren- time execution was requirement Constitution’s only would not be an der such a decision exist, good cause did there be no could more unprecedented break with than statutory exception faith to the enhanced in this years history area two hundred requirements night- for the issuance law, but would be tantamount time warrant.79 judicial of a Dela- repeal specific to a how explained Our decision in Mason than one ware that for more statute Dela- history years search and seizure in has set the standards hundred nighttime the Fourth applications ware is different from that of which judged Amendment the United States Consti- searches of residence by impartial magistrates.84 independent “Delaware’s interest tution. States, U.S. 79. Mason

74. Weeks United (1914); Boyd 58 L.Ed. 652 v. Unit- S.Ct. States, L.Ed. ed S.Ct. 80. Id. at 248. Calandra, 414

75. United States v. U.S. Id. S.Ct. 38 L.Ed.2d 561 Id. at 94 S.Ct. 613. 82. 11 Del.C. Leon, 897, 913, U.S. States v. at 254-55. 83. Mason 82 L.Ed.2d 677 104 S.Ct. Id. Rights Require A fortiori, there can be faith Remedies no exception when the cause re- appeal The issue on to very relates spe- quirement in the Delaware language in cific the Delaware Constitu- in this absent—-as ease. “no any place tion: warrant to search ... ... shall issue be probable unless there The Delaware Constitution ac- requires supported by oath affirmation.”90 tual probable cause for of a the issuance case, probable In this of absence cause search warrant not “a good faith belief Instead, is not issue. dispute real probable cause.” This Court cannot dis- majority between the and the minority regard probable requirement cause whether turns on the Delaware Constitu- explicitly set in the forth Delaware Con- provides remedy tion a when items are stitution. The entire a purpose having of pursuant seized to a search warrant present officer his or her belief in was without cause. probable issued probable to a magistrate cause neutral question That an issue is not of first protect Delaware’s citizens against Rickards, ago, in impression. Fifty years issuance of search prob- warrants without held that a violation of the able cause. right not Delaware Constitution’s to be preservation “The of diversity pursuant searched to a warrant that was legal governmental systems and of each required cause issued state expressly contemplated when remedy. constitutional of the il- —exclusion the United States Constitution framed seized legally items from evidence at tri- The majority United States Su- has. concluded that al.91 adopted.”85 preme correctly Rickards was decided and Court has has acknowledged that state applied that venerable construction of the rights frequently differ- this case. Delaware Constitution to ent from than Bill and broader the federal ' of A great many supreme Rights.86 minority that when concludes there courts, recently more have conclud- good is a faith violation of the Iowa,87 ed that the rationale in Leon is inconsis- requirement in Delaware’s Constitu- tent with state constitutional dimensions to tion, remedy. there is no constitutional exclusionary of enforcement Blackstone’s were Commentaries cited rule.88 Jones, again this Court held that those Chief John “several Justice Marshall times “dimensions are correlative to fundamental support proposition the law Delaware state constitutional and to furnish a remedy must violation of preserving integrity judicial sys- legal right.”92 a vested Almost two centu- Madison, tem in Delaware.”89 ago, Marbury ries Chief Cases, lawfully Jones 745 A.2d Seized—Post-Leon (1999). Holland, Randy J. See State Constitu- A.L.R.5Ü1470 also Jennifer See Fries- Function, Purpose Temp.L.Rev. tions: 989, en, 5(b)(2d State Constitutional Law ed. 11— 998-99 Supp.1999). 1996 & Burbine, 86. See Moran v. 89. Jones v. S.Ct. 89 L.Ed.2d 410 Cline, 87. State v. 617 N.W.2d 2000 Iowa Const, I, § 90. Del. art. (2000) (In Sup. noting LEXIS 152 footnote exception reject- faith has been Id.; State, Del.Supr., Rickards v. Alaska, ed under the state constitutions of Connecticut, Idaho, Michigan, Hamp- New shire, Mexico, Nevada, Jersey, New New Carolina, Vermont.). Pennsylvania North Nolan, R. William Dennis Sir Blackstone Republic: Study and the New A Intellectual

88. Jones v. 745 A.2d at See John Impact. 51 N.Y.U.L.Rev. Theuman, Annotation, E. State Constitutional Requirements as to Exclusion Evidence Un- BERGER, Justice, Marshall, dissenting. relying on Blaekstone’s Justice Commentaries, “The eloquently stated: there is no majority holds government of the has been exception exclusionary “good faith” laws, emphatically government termed rule under Delaware Constitution. on certainly It will conclusion and not of men. cease But it does rest its impact analysis exception or its on if laws high appellation, deserve this protected by the rights sought of a remedy no for the violation furnish Instead, majority rule. system of legal right.”93 In our vested (i) says that: Delaware’s constitutional government Dela- sovereignty, dual searches safeguard against unreasonable laws. government ware is also With- from and seizures is different and broader remedy, out a constitutional protection than the similar found oxymoron right” “constitutional is an (ii) Amendment; Fourth this Court protec- could unravel the entire fabric of adopt good exception faith could not in Delaware’s two hundred and twen- tions exclusionary overruling rule without the Rights. ty-five year old of Declaration fact, In years. 50 precedents spanning impression, this is a case first even Evidence Excluded if the and Federal State Constitutions Leon, Both before and in con after interpreted differently, the Constitution, the Delaware this struing exclusionary rule exception faith the recognized should be under Delaware law. Court held that there are state constitu tional dimensions to the enforcement of out, majority prior the points As ver- exclusionary the rule.94 remain con We I, of Article Section 6 the Delaware sion that there are dimen vinced constitutional predate does the Fourth Constitution for remedy sions to a violation of to the States Constitu- Amendment United said, language tion. That two Delaware Constitution’s Declaration “substantially provisions is identical”96 Rights. Accordingly, our we adhere to and, year, until last this Court followed prior holdings in Rickards and its progeny, federal law on search and seizure issues including holding our recent most Jones: in the finding without differences con- remedy exclusion is the for a constitutional protections afforded under state stitutional violation of the search protec and seizure State, example, In law. Rickards v. forth in Article tions set I Section 6 of adopted the this Court Su- Therefore, Delaware Constitution.95 rule, exclusionary finding preme Court’s evidence seized from the search of Dor are, guarantees two cause, vehicles, sey’s two identical,”97 practical purposes, “for all suppressed. must be exclusionary rule is and that the federal way protect effective “the most Conclusion against unreasonable search guarantees Dorsey’s judgment conviction This Court continued and seizure....”98 Superior Court for of a Fire- Possession State,99 v. to follow federal law Cook arm a Person Prohibited is reversed. adopted when we the “inevitable discov- rule, pro- exclusionary This matter is remanded for further exception to the ery” State,100 recog- v. we this and Mason when ceedings opinion. accordance with Madison, (1 Cranch) State, Del.Supr., Marbury U.S. 96. Rickards v. 93. v. 5 137, 163, (1950). L.Ed. Ibid. State, Del.Supr., v. A.2d Jones State, (1999); Del.Supr., A.2d Rickards v. Id. at 205. Del.Supr., 374 A.2d 873-74; v. Rick Jones A.2d Del.Supr., 534 77 A.2d 199 ards “exigent doctrine

nized circumstances” That is not so. Neither nor Rickards Ma- exception to as an the search warrant re- son this addressed issue. Rickards was quirement. long decided before Leon simply adopted exclusionary federal rule. year, last had Until this Court “never Mason, Leon, which was decided after ex- whether, situations, and in decided what pressly stated “Leon applicable is not I, § 6 Article Delaware questions presented ap- be interpreted provide protec should peal.” are greater tions that than the ac citizens corded the Fourteenth Amend When the rule interpreted by ment as has been Court, it by this considered most Supreme United States In Court.”101 practical remedy for per- an invasion of a majority Jones of this Court right son’s to. be free from unreasonable found searches and seizures. Rickards Court’s D.102decision Hodari California that police court noted efforts to thwart was “not consistent with our view when justify crime cannot a “deliberate invasion” person is ‘seized’ within meaning of a citizen’s constitutional rights.107 I, § Article 6 of the Constitu Cook, however, this recognized Accordingly, majority tion. ...”103 suppression always of evidence is not Jones refused to follow law on this federal remedy appropriate for a deliberate viola- seized, point, and held that a is person protection against tion of the constitutional I, Article under Section 6 of the Delaware unreasonable searches and seizures. The Constitution, person “when a reasonable that, held notwithstanding Cook court the would have believed he or not free she was rule, exclusionary illegally evidence seized ignore police presence.”104 police is admissible when the can show majority The now finds another differ- they that would have that evi- discovered ence between our State and Federal Con- dence, eventually, through lawful means. law, stitutions. Under federal evidence Since the Cook decision that establishes with a obtained that warrant is exceptions there are some to the exclusion- held to sup- later be invalid not be will rule, ary this Court should examine as pressed long police as the “[act- officer it, too, good exception faith to see whether objective good with faith ... obtained ed] recognized. should be judge magis- a search warrant from a acted trate and within its The scope.”105 good There are several why reasons majority holds that “good excep- faith” exception faith should be Dela- adopted tion apply rule does First, ware. to the extent that the exclu- in our state because is the con- “exclusion sionary police rule is intended to deter remedy stitutional for a violation of the misconduct, it purpose serves no protections search and seizure ... of the that to the give circumstances would rise Delaware Constitution.” good exception. faith A who police officer (i) cause, majority suggests prepares The that conclu- an affidavit of probable only permitted sion is one under exist- which officer reasonably believes is law, (ii) warrant, ing pres- case and that the would obtain a dissenters sufficient to force the Court an independent magistrate, reverse ancient and ents it to who precedent respected supports to rule otherwise. also concludes that the affidavit Leon, 897, 920, 101. Jones States v. 104 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 677 U.S. 111 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 106. Mason v. 534 A.2d at 254. A.2d at 107.77 A.2d at 205. 104. 745 at 869. war of the search warrant, exactly issuance doing is issuance a violation there was no mak- rant and therefore law officer is requires.

what the or- faith, § 2306 or the Delaware objectively reasonable 11 Del.C. ing good a If privacy rights there protect our citizens’ federal Constitutions. effort officer search warrant was securing warrant. Since the whether the question issued, that the constitu- the record shows upholding believes is properly she/he evidence, tion, on the suppression seized acted in faith reliance good police warrant finding based on a later the rule in accordance with warrant defective, deter “mis- will not future adopted the United conduct.” States Leon.108 Court United majority suppression im- suggests no Constitutional I find abuses, police but good not intended to deter adoption by us of the pediment remedy the unconstitutional invasion evidentiary exclu- exception to the faith so, If then privacy. an individual’s forth in Leon and I sionary rule as set exception that, there an for evidence why is a mat- Berger with agree Justice miscon- through police intentional obtained public policy, should be ter of just have duct because the evidence would in a murder my opinion, Delaware. lawfully at later been discovered some faith investigation, exception rule individual’s time? balance between represents reasonable violated, sup- provide are but we no of an owner of motor vehicle right pression remedy. And since we counte- weapon might contain free constitutional violations knowing right nance search and the from an unreasonable police comply where the make no effort to harm. to be safe from an individual law, certainly we condone is, therefore, legal with should no my opinion, There unknowing constitutional violations where into evidence bar to introduction fully comply attempting Dorsey’s motor weapon that was found with the law. vehicle. Finally, public policy pro- good I. majori- consistency

mote in our laws. The relies, in part, on Jones majority ty’s suggestion judges that would be violat- State,109 I in in which concurred case interpret if ing they their oaths of office thought I it was undesir- but where uni- result the State Federal Constitutions Where, here, to reach the constitu- two able for formly wrong. of 11 in provisions virtually provisions are iden- tional issues view tical, applying 1902.110 In that statute long history and there is a of inter- Del.C. Jones, I that consistently, facts in believed them this Court preting there did not interpretations totality deviate from federal of the circumstances should finding if to do only compelling adequately support there are reasons majority compel- searching no justifying so. The has offered the seizure and I, therefore, Accordingly, I none. ling reasons and find a warrant. of Jones respectfully considering I dissent. the result without concurred arguments. Constitutional Justice,

HARTNETT, dissenting: case, however, the affida- although present have been warrant could supporting the vit with agree I dissent and respectfully drafted, totality I find I better Berger we should affirm. Justice reasonably showed a because, the circumstances my opinion, affirm would Superior basis for sufficient totality support circumstances authoriz- to have issued warrant judge finding that there was sufficient J., (Hartnett, concurring). at 874 110.Id. 104 S.Ct. 3405 DeLSupr., ing search of the motor vehicle and state public policy. agree I with that rea- soning. therefore there was statutory no or consti-

tutional violation.111 III.

II. good.faith Because the exception to the exclusionary rule is not precluded by the I also find in our nothing case law nor in Constitution, or any statute or (or the Delaware Constitution of 1897 precedent, the whether, issue before us is predecessors) its precludes adopt- our as a public policy, matter of good faith ing good exception faith adopted rule exception rule should in Dela- by the United Supreme States Court in ware. I believe it should be. Leon. Constitution, first Delaware States,112 In 1914 in Weeks United incorporated a Declaration Rights Court held that Fundamental Rules of the Delaware State. evidence obtained means of an unlawful Section stated: search and seizure federal officers is That all warrants without oath to against admissible an accused in a suspected places, or to seize any federal criminal trial. The exclusionary person or property, grievous his are rule thus established was based on the oppressive; and general all warrants to prohibition against unreasonable searches search suspected places, or appre- and seizures in the Fourth Amendment to hend persons all suspected, without the Federal Constitution and did not affect naming or describing place or the admissibility of evidence in state person in special, illegal ought Ohio,113 courts. In 1961 in Mapp v. granted.116 not to be United States Supreme Court extended I nothing find language that pre- rule to state courts. De cludes a faith exception any later laware had earlier reached the same con judicially-created exclusionary rule and clusion in Rickards v. State.114 there is no evidence delegates Leon, In 1984 in the United States Su- that Convention considered an exclusion- preme Court held that the Fourth Amend- ary rule any good faith exception there- Constitution, ment itself, the Federal to. does not expressly preclude the use of case, In any the 1776 Constitution with evidence obtained by acting officers Rights Declaration of ceased to be the warrant, reasonable reliance on a search Constitution of Delaware or to have that is later This is found defective. (not amended) force when it replaced now known as “the good faith exception by the Delaware Constitution of 1792 that then, rule .” Since some states have not was promulgated by the delegates on June rule, considered the while others have ei- 12, 1792. The Delaware Constitutional ther adopted rejected it or it. 19 ALR 5th convened, Convention of large 1792 was 470, Bolt,115 487. In State v. the Arizona part, adoption because of the of the United Court, Supreme reviewing after the pros States Constitution in 1789 and its Bill of and cons of alternative means of deterring (the amendments) Rights first ten illegal by police, searches the adopted the 1791.117 Bill Rights of had been rati- good faith exception rule 28, as a matter of by fied Delaware January on Gates, 213, 260, (1984). 111. See Illinois v. 115. 142 Ariz. 689 P.2d 519 S.Ct 76 L.Ed.2d 527 Rights 116. Declaration of and Fundamental 112. 232 U.S. 34 S.Ct. 58 L.Ed. 652 § Rules of the Delaware State Eckman, 117. See Jeannete Constitutional De- 113. 367 U.S. 81 S.Ct 6 L.Ed.2d velopment History 1776-1897 Delaware: A Reed, (H. ed., Clay the First 284-85 of 1947). 77 A.2d 199 by In cases on the pro- my opinion, the relied The Delaware Constitution of In persuasive. are not Mason majority vided in “The shall be people Section 6: the challenged the search of de State121 houses, papers, in their persons, secure place during took apartment fendant’s from possessions, unreasonable Subsequent nighttime without a warrant. seizures; and searches and no warrant to search, was obtained that warrant any place, any person search or to seize the exigent this held did not meet Court things, describing issue without them shall circumstances mandate Del.C. then; be; particularly may un- as as nor § nighttime less supported there In Rickards and Sanders statute.122 That language oath or affirmation.” State,123 good did not discuss Court (with stylistic changes) in readopted only court, A construing faith reliance. the Delaware Constitution of 1881 that constitution, using begin by should replaced the Constitution. Our cur- used construe an principles same of law Constitution, replaced rent which the 1831 In Assembly.124 Act con General Constitution, adopted the same lan- attempt a statute a court must struing in Art. I guage enacting body. the intent of the ascertain Constitution, In a court State,118 the case of In Rickards v. this Court stat- intent should consider the of its framers I, ed: the [1897] “Article Section on always initial focus is substantially Delaware is Edmunds,126 text.125 In Commonwealth v. identical with the Fourth Amendment of Pennsylvania Supreme acknowl preventing Federal Constitution un- edged beyond it the text and went reasonable searches and seizures. Article Pennsylvania of the history Constitution. I, Section the Constitution Dela- It on certain criminal rules of also relied ware prohibits compulsory self-incrimina- Hunt,127 In Pennsylvania. State substantially tion and is the same Jersey Supreme acknowledged New Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitu- its justified reasons de policy State 119 I agree. tion.” As the Supreme Court parture precedents from constru federal Leon, of the States held in there is ing Fourth Amendment to the federal nothing in that language Constitutional Constitution. exception addresses a faith exclusionary the judicially created rule stenographic Because no record In long was created after 1897. Rick- debates of the Delaware Constitutional ards this Court prior to the 1897 Convention Conventions rule persuad- for Delaware because it was exists, find virtually impossible ed reasoning valid other than the aid construction proge- primary Court Weeks and one: the text itself. to the Constitutional Convention ny.120 delegates (1950). Del.Supr., 585 A.2d 117 Del.Supr., 123. v. 118. 77 A.2d 199 Sanders (1990). of the ef- Sanders involved the issue "guilty mentally added). jury but fect of verdict (emphasis 119. at 204 ill” not search and seizure. State, Del.Supr., 120. v. 374 A.2d See Cook Fink, Del.Supr., 124. A.2d Turnbull v. (1977); Del.Supr., Gamer (1995). n. 7 A.2d 908 Martelli, Del.Supr., 647 A.2d 125. Alfieri 534 A.2d 1n. "We 122. The Court stated find that Leon is 126. 526 Pa. questions presented applicable NJ. appeal.” A.2d at 254.

agreed adopt change the bill of rights as contained in the Delaware Con- GROUP, AMERICAN INSURANCE stitutions of 1792 and 1831.128In Rickards AIG, AIAC, a New York a/k/a a/k/a the Delaware Supreme Court found that corporation, National Union Fire In §I Article 6 of the Delaware Constitution Company Pittsburgh, PA, surance is substantially identical to the text of the Pennsylvania corporation and Abacus Fourth Amendment to the federal Consti- Corporation, Maryland corporation tution. Supreme As the United States Security Services, Abacus Defen t/a Leon, Court found there is no language Below, Appellants, dants in the Fourth Amendment that addresses the issue good of a faith exception to the judicially MANAGEMENT, created rule. I am RISK ENTERPRISE also convinced it LIMITED, was the United States corporation, a Delaware Constitution of 1789 that primary was the Shopping Cadillac Fairview Center impetus for the Delaware Properties (Delaware), Inc., a Dela 1792 that replaced the Delaware Constitu- corporation, Prop ware JMB Retail tion of 1776.129In my opinion, we are free Company, erties JMB Retail a/k/a adopt good faith exception rule as Properties, Co., Retail JMB a/k/a adopted by the Supreme United States Properties, Co., Inc., JMB Retail Leon and should do so as a Properties Company, Inc., Prop JMB matter of good policy. Company, Properties erties JMB a/k/a Co., Properties Co., Inc., JMB a/k/a IV. Properties Company, Inc., JMB a/k/a I summary, agree with Justice Ber- Properties, Inc., and CFUS a Dela ger that judgment of the Superior corporation, Below, ware Plaintiffs is, Court be affirmed. in my There opin- Appellees. ion, binding no Delaware Constitutional No. provision precedent or adopts that either good the Leon faith exception to the exclu- Supreme Court of Delaware. sionary precludes rule or adoption by July Submitted: If good us. the Leon faith exception is to Decided: Oct. rejected, be it must- be done so on the dicta, public basis of policy, not statutes speculation.130

historical In my opinion, (as faith exception adopted rule

by the

Leon), policy, as matter of state consti- proper

tutes a balance the rights between

of an owner of a motor vehicle that con-

tains a weapon protection against

unreasonable and the of indi- should, therefore,

viduals to life. It in Delaware. Ward, Lockwood, "History Rodman Jr. and Paul J. never embraces more than a in The Delaware Constitution 78-79 part reality.” small La Rochefoucauld. Holland, ed., 1997). (Randy J. Eckman,

129. Jeannete Develop- Constitutional History ment 1776-1786 in Delaware: A Reed, ed., (H. 1947). Clay 284-85 First

Case Details

Case Name: Dorsey v. State

Court Name: Supreme Court of Delaware

Date Published: Oct 18, 2000

Citation: 761 A.2d 807

Docket Number: 546, 1998

Court Abbreviation: Del.