Case Title: Darling v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 470, 1999

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DESHAUNE DARLING, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  No. 470, 1999 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
§ 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§  in and for Kent County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IK97-08-0503; 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§    IK97-08-0505; and  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§    IK97-08-0506 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  January 17, 2001 
 
 
 
 
     Decided:  March 16, 2001 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, HOLLAND, BERGER, and 
STEELE, Justices (constituting the Court en Banc). 
 
 
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED. 
 
 
Bernard J. O’Donnell, Esquire, Assistant Public Defender, 
Wilmington, Delaware, for appellant. 
 
 
John Williams, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Dover, Delaware, 
for appellee. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOLLAND, Justice: 
 
2
 
Following a jury trial, the defendant-appellant, Deshaune Darling, was 
convicted of Possession with Intent to Deliver Marijuana, Possession of 
Drug Paraphernalia and Resisting Arrest.  He was acquitted of Wearing a 
Disguise During the Commission of a Felony.  For Possession with Intent to 
Deliver Marijuana, Darling was sentenced to, inter alia, five years 
imprisonment at Level V, suspended after three years for six months at 
Level IV Home Confinement and eighteen months at Level III.  For 
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Darling was sentenced to one year at 
Level V, suspended for six months at Level III and six months at Level II.  
For Resisting Arrest, Darling was sentenced to one year at Level V 
suspended for one year at Level I. 
 
This is Darling’s direct appeal.  The sole issue presented is Darling’s 
contention that the Superior Court erroneously denied a pretrial motion to 
suppress evidence of marijuana.  According to Darling, there was no basis 
for the police to reasonably suspect that he had engaged in any criminal 
activity.  Darling contends that the police violated his right to be free from 
unreasonable searches and seizures as set forth in both the United States 
Constitution and the Delaware Constitution.1   
                                          
 
1 U.S. Const. amend IV; Del. Const. art. I, §6. 
 
3
 
The Superior Court concluded that the State presented a reasonable 
articulable suspicion of criminal activity for the police to stop and detain 
Darling.  The Superior Court held that Darling abandoned the marijuana as 
he was fleeing from the police when they properly attempted to detain him.  
Accordingly, the Superior Court denied Darling’s motion to suppress.2   
 
We have concluded that the State not only demonstrated an articulable 
suspicion of criminal activity but established probable cause for the police to 
make a warrantless arrest of Darling.  Consequently, the marijuana was 
properly seized pursuant to that warrantless arrest and was admissible as 
evidence pursuant to both the United States Constitution and the Delaware 
Constitution.  Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed, 
albeit on an alternative basis.   
Suppression Hearing Testimony 
 
The only witness who testified at the suppression hearing was 
Delaware State Police Corporal Rodney L. Workman.  Corporal Workman 
was assigned to the special investigations tactical unit involved with “the 
                                          
 
2 The Superior Court based its ruling upon the United States Supreme Court decision in 
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991).  That decision was subsequently 
distinguished by this Court’s opinion in Jones v. State, Del. Supr., 745 A.2d 856 (1999).  
Although the parties address those cases in supplemental briefs, neither decision is 
dispositive in Darling’s case.   
 
4
open air drug markets in Kent and Sussex Counties.”3  On August 19, 1997, 
the special investigations tactical unit was working in Williamsville at an 
area known as “the Hole.”  According to Corporal Workman, the Hole “is a 
dirt lane off the paved highway which opens up into some mobile homes.  
The dirt lane is about three hundred yards in length with only one way in and 
that same way out.  Corporal Workman identified the Hole as “one of those 
areas where people stand out along the road and sell drugs.” 
 
Corporal Workman testified that on August 19, 1997, he was working 
with Delaware State Police Corporal Warren McGee.  They drove an 
unmarked vehicle down the dirt road leading to the Hole.  Both were dressed 
in civilian clothes.  The two police officers stopped their automobile 
approximately one hundred yards away from a group of individuals.  
Corporal Workman testified that “one black male was standing beside a blue 
Lincoln.  He had on blue jeans, a bandana on his head, a red bandana 
covering his nose and face, wearing it as a mask.  The blue Lincoln pulled 
away, drove past Detective McGee and I.  We observed an elderly white 
man driving the vehicle.”  At the pre-trial suppression hearing, Corporal 
                                          
 
3 When the special investigations tactical unit was created, there were thirty-six areas 
identified as open-air drug markets in Kent and Sussex Counties.  As of the time of the 
suppression hearing, Corporal Workman testified that during his ten-year career he had 
made approximately fifty arrests for drug related offenses.  The majority of these arrests 
were made as a member of the special investigations tactical unit.   
 
5
Workman identified Darling as the individual he observed wearing the red 
bandana mask. 
 
After the blue Lincoln left the Hole, Corporal Workman and McGee 
drove a little further down the dirt lane.  Corporal Workman testified that 
after the male with the red bandana finished “dealing” with the gentleman in 
the blue Lincoln, he walked back to a white shed where several other people 
were standing around.  Corporal Workman testified that when he and 
McGee “drove further in, the other black males wearing masks approached 
us.  We made a u-turn and left the area before they could get too close to 
us.”   
Corporal Workman testified that after observing the individuals 
wearing masks and Darling’s “dealing with the gentleman in the blue 
Lincoln”, he and Corporal McGee returned to their office.  There, they 
changed into camouflage clothing and formulated a plan to return to the 
Hole and arrest the suspects.  The plan was for uniformed officers of the 
Delaware State Police to enter the Hole from one direction while Workman 
and three members of the special investigations tactical unit approached the 
suspects from the back through the woods.   
When Corporal Workman returned to the Hole, he was able to crawl 
through the woods to a location approximately thirty yards away from 
 
6
Darling.  From that vantage point, Corporal Workman testified that he 
“watched the same subject with a red bandana and red mask on.  A car 
pulled up, he pulled his mask up, walked out, made a deal, walked back, 
pulled his mask down and starting chatting with the others again.”  At this 
point, Corporal Workman was contacted by radio and advised that the 
uniformed Delaware State Police officers were coming down the dirt road.   
As the uniformed officers approached down the dirt road, Corporal 
Workman testified that he and the other members of the special 
investigations tactical unit “jumped up, took off after them yelling, State 
Police, get on the ground.  Four subjects I believe took off running, one of 
them being defendant, Darling who had on two red bandanas, one on his 
head and one around his neck.”  During the ensuing foot chase, Corporal 
Workman observed Darling reach into his right front pocket and throw a 
white plastic bag on the ground.  Darling dove into a briar bush in an attempt 
to hide.  Corporal Workman and McGee, however, were able to apprehend 
and handcuff him.   
Corporal Workman then retrieved the white bag that Darling had 
thrown on the ground.  Corporal Workman discovered a brown paper bag 
inside containing a clear cellophane bag with what appeared to be marijuana.  
 
7
When Darling was patted down by the police, they also discovered a large 
amount of United States currency in his left front pocket.   
Warrantless Arrest Standard 
 
We have concluded under the unique circumstances of this case, that 
the police conduct in carrying out a plan to surround Darling at gunpoint and 
order him to the ground was more than a seizure but, in fact, constituted an 
arrest under both the United States Constitution and the Delaware 
Constitution.4  Therefore, we must determine whether the police had 
probable cause to arrest Darling at the time that they emerged from the 
woods.5  If the police did have probable cause at the time of the arrest, the 
bag of marijuana is admissible as the product of a lawful seizure.   
 
A police officer is empowered to make a warrantless arrest for any 
felony, if he or she has “reasonable grounds” to believe the person to be 
arrested has committed the crime.6  “Reasonable grounds” has been 
interpreted to be synonymous with probable cause.7  This Court has said 
that: 
                                          
 
4 See Jones v. State, Del. Supr., 745 A.2d 856 (1999).  See also Quarles v. State, Del. 
Supr., 696 A.2d 1334 (1997). 
5 See Quarles v. State, 696 A.2d at 1337 (“[An arrest] may occur only when police have 
established probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.”). 
6 11 Del. C. § 1904(b)(1); Thomas v. State, Del. Supr., 467 A.2d 954, 957 n.3 (1983); 
Gardner v. State, Del. Supr., 567 A.2d 404, 409 (1989). 
7 Thomas v. State, 467 A.2d at 957 n.3. 
 
8
‘Probable cause is an elusive concept which avoids precise 
definition. . . .  It lies somewhere between suspicion and 
sufficient evidence to convict.’  For this reason, probable cause 
is measured by the totality of the circumstances through a case 
by case review of ‘the factual and practical considerations of 
everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men [act].’8 
 
A finding of probable cause is necessarily case-specific.  A 
determination of the existence of probable cause for a warrantless felony 
arrest is based on a “totality of the circumstances.”9  Courts generally require 
that “‘the facts and circumstances within [the officers’] knowledge and of 
which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to 
warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was 
committing an offense.’”10  Courts must review probable cause 
determinations in light of “the factual and practical considerations of 
everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians 
act.”11 
                                          
 
8 O’Neil v. State, Del. Supr., 691 A.2d 50, 54 (1997) (citations omitted). 
9 Gardner v. State, 567 A.2d at 409; Coleman v. State, Del. Supr., 562 A.2d 1171, 1177 
(1989) (“The requisite analysis in determining the sufficiency of probable cause for a 
warrantless arrest is determined according to a ‘totality of the circumstances’ test.”); 
Thompson v. State, Del. Supr., 539 A.2d 1052, 1055 (1988).   
10 United States ex rel. Hawkins v. Anderson, D. Del., 343 F.Supp. 200, 201 (1972) 
(quoting Beck v.Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964)).   
11 Hovington v. State, Del. Supr., 616 A.2d 829, 833 (1992) (quoting Thompson v. State, 
Del. Supr., 539 A.2d 1052, 1055 (1988)). 
 
9
Probable Cause Established 
In Darling’s case, Corporal Workman testified candidly that he could 
not see precisely what was exchanged between Darling and the driver of the 
Lincoln.  Nevertheless, based upon his police training and experience, 
Corporal Workman concluded that the masked male was “dealing [drugs] 
with the gentleman in the blue Lincoln.”  Corporal Workman testified that 
he personally observed Darling make a second “deal” with the driver of a 
different vehicle later the same day.  These personal observations by an 
experienced police officer at a known open-air drug sale area constituted 
sufficient probable cause to arrest Darling for contraband drug dealing.12    
Conclusion 
 
The marijuana was properly seized as incident to Darling’s lawful 
arrest.  The judgments of the Superior Court are affirmed. 
                                          
 
12 Quarles v. State, Del. Supr., 696 A.2d 1334 (1997).