Defendant-Below/Appellant Bernardo McKinney (“McKinney”) appeals from a Superior Court judgment of conviction for possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”). McKinney raises one claim on appeal. McKinney contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence because the affidavit in support of the search for his residence did not show probable cause. The warrant was issued based upon an affidavit that explained that a confidential informant (“Cl”) told the police that he had purchased marijuana that day from a white female with dark hair and blue eyes, and previously from a black male, at McKinney’s apartment. There was no information in the affidavit supporting the Cl’s reliability or corroborating criminal activity at the apartment. The police did determine that McKinney, who is black, and his girlfriend, who is white with blue eyes, lived at the apartment. In this Opinion, we reaffirm our holding in Legrande v. State that a confidential informant’s tip must be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not merely in its tendency to identify a determinate person.
I. Facts and Procedural History
In December 2012, Officer John Mitchell (“Mitchell”) of the Elsmere Police Department in Delaware was contacted by a Cl. The Cl told Mitchell he had purchased
Mitchell knew that McKinney, a black male, lived at 1509 Maple Ave., Apt. 1, and used the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System to perform a search on McKinney. The search confirmed that both McKinney and his girlfriend, Ashley King (“King”), resided at the apartment the Cl identified, and that King had blue eyes. Mitchell also presented a “six pack” photo lineup to the Cl, who selected King as the person who sold him the marijuana. Thereafter, Mitchell applied for a search warrant for McKinney’s apartment. Mitchell submitted an affidavit with the warrant application, which stated the facts set out above. The warrant was issued based solely on the .information provided by Mitchell, without any explanation of the Cl’s reliability, and without any police corroboration of criminal activity at the apartment.
Shortly after obtaining the warrant, officers executed a search of the apartment. The search resulted in the seizure of money, a firearm, and illegal controlled substances including- a marijuana cigarette. McKinney was indicted on, among other counts, two counts of PFBPP. McKinney moved to suppress the evidence recovered from his apartment, claiming that the search warrant did not establish probable cause to search his residence. The Superi- or Court denied the motion. After a bench trial, the court found McKinney guilty of PFBPP and the State entered a nolle prosequi on the remaining charges. McKinney was sentenced as a habitual offender,
II. Discussion
“We review the Superior Court’s grant of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion. Where the facts are not in dispute and only a constitutional claim of probable cause is at issue, this Court’s review of the Superior Court’s ruling is de novo.’ ”
“An affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant application must set forth facts that, within the affidavit’s four corners, are sufficient for a neutral magistrate to conclude that a crime has been committed and that the property sought to be seized would be found in a particular place.”
A court reviewing the magistrate’s determination must “ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
In LeGrande v. State, we held that a tip from a confidential informant was not suf-fíciently corroborated to establish probable cause because police had not found evidence to confirm the informant’s assertion that illegal activity had occurred or was occurring.
“An accurate description of a subject’s readily observable location and appearance is of course reliable in this limited sense: It will help the police correctly identify the person whom the tipster means to accuse. Such a tip, however, does not show that the tipster has knowledge of concealed criminal activity. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person.”16
Accordingly, we found that because there was “no corroboration by independent police work of the anonymous tipster’s assertion of illegality ... the totality of the circumstances did not provide the issuing magistrate a substantial basis for concluding there was probable cause....”
McKinney argues that our holding in Legrande is applicable to the facts of this case and should be followed. We agree. We find that the Superior Court erred by failing to grant McKinney’s motion to sup
III. Conclusion
The judgment of the Superior Court is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
. LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103, 1111 (Del. 2008).
. See 11 Del. C. § 4214(a).
. State v. Holden, 60 A.3d 1110, 1113 (Del.2013) (quoting Smith v. State, 887 A.2d 470 (Del.2005)).
. U.S. Const, amend. IV; Del. Const, art. I, § 6.
. State v. Maxwell, 624 A.2d 926, 930 (Del.1993) (internal citations omitted).
. Arcuri v. State, 49 A.3d 1177, 1179 (Del.2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).-
. Id.
. Holden, 60 A.3d at 1113.
. U.S. v. Valentine, 232 F.3d 350, 354 (3d Cir.2000) (“[A] tip given face to face is more reliable than an anonymous telephone call.”).
. Bailey v. State, 440 A.2d 997, 999 (Del. 1982) ("A prior basis for establishing the reliability of an informant is unnecessary in the case of an average law abiding citizen performing a civic duty by reporting a crime.”).
. Valentine, 232 F.3d at 354.
. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).
. Rivera v. State, 7 A.3d 961, 967 (Del.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
. Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288, 296 (Del.2006) (quoting United States v. Zimmerman, 277 F.3d 426, 432 (3d Cir.2002)).
. LeGrande, 947 A.2d at 1111.
. Id. at 1110 (quoting Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 272, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000) (emphasis added)).
. Id. at 1111.
. See Brown v. State, 897 A.2d 748, 751 (Del.2006) (“The information provided in the tip was corroborated by independent police observations of Brown approaching the Closet at the time reported in the tip.”); Bailey v. State, 440 A.2d 997, 1000 (Del. 1982) (finding that a tip from citizen informant was corroborated when police found the victim’s body at the identified location).