Case Title: Arcuri v. Delaware

Citation: 

Docket Number: 473, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-07-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOSEPH D. ARCURI,
 
§
§
No. 473, 2011
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
Court Below:  Superior Court
v.
§
of the State of Delaware,
§
in and for New Castle County
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Cr. A. No. IN11-03-1471
Plaintiff Below, 
§
Cr. I.D. No. 1103005933
Appellee.
§
Submitted:  July 5, 2012
Decided:  July 26, 2012
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices and STRINE,
Chancellor,* constituting the Court en Banc.
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED.
Joseph A. Hurley, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellant.
Maria T. Knoll, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellee.
BERGER, Justice:
*Sitting by designation pursuant to art. IV, § 12 of the Delaware Constitution and Supreme Court
Rules 2 and 4 (a) to fill up the quorum as required.
In this appeal we consider whether the affidavit filed in support of a search
warrant supported a magistrate’s finding of probable cause.  The affidavit describes
a confidential source as “past proven and reliable” without explaining the basis for
that statement.  In addition, the affidavit describes the activities of a “drug detection
K-9,” but it does not state that the dog was trained and certified.  Notwithstanding
these omissions, the totality of the circumstances  support the magistrate’s decision
authorizing the search warrant.  Accordingly, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
In March, 2011, Detective Robert Cassidy was working in the Delaware State
Police Drug Unit.  A confidential source (CS) told Cassidy that Joseph  D. Arcuri was
selling marijuana in New York and Delaware.  After the CS identified Arcuri’s
picture (from a website and his driver’s license), the CS  told Cassidy that Arcuri had
more than five pounds of marijuana in his hotel room and his van.  The CS said that
Arcuri and another man were staying in room 256 of the Doubletree Hotel, 4727
Concord Pike, Wilmington, Delaware.  The CS also described Arcuri’s van as a 2001
Dodge Caravan with New York license plate number CAL4399.
Cassidy contacted Wilmington Police Corporal Vitale, who brought Kai, his
drug detection dog, to the Doubletree Hotel.  When Vitale walked Kai past room 256,
the dog had a positive reaction for the presence of drugs.  Kai again alerted to the
2
presence of drugs when he walked around the Dodge Caravan.
Based on this information, Cassidy applied for and received a search warrant
on March 7, 2011.  He executed the search the same day, and found marijuana in the
hotel room and the van.  Arcuri was arrested and charged with possession with intent
to deliver marijuana, and related drug offenses.  The Superior Court denied his
motion to suppress, and held a stipulated non-jury trial on August 18, 2011.  Arcuri
was convicted of possession with intent to deliver and the other charges were
dismissed.  This appeal followed.
Discussion
Arcuri argues that Cassidy’s affidavit did not include sufficient information to
support a finding of probable cause.  The governing law is settled:
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.  In determining whether probable cause exists, the magistrate
must apply a totality of the circumstances test to decide if there is a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a
particular place.  In so doing, the magistrate may draw reasonable
inferences from the affidavit’s factual allegations.
This Court reviews a magistrate’s determination of probable cause with
great deference . . . .  Although this Court will not simply rubber stamp
a magistrate’s conclusions, our review need only ensure that the
magistrate had a substantial basis for finding that probable cause
3
existed.1 
As the trial court noted, Cassidy’s affidavit was not as specific as it might have
been.  It does not include any facts explaining the conclusory statement that the CS
was “past proven reliable,” and it does not provide any evidence that Kai is a properly
trained, reliable, drug detection dog.  It would be better practice to include a brief
statement about the accuracy of the CS’s past tips, and to describe Kai as a “certified”
or “fully trained” drug detection dog.  But an affidavit of probable cause does not
have to be perfect.
This affidavit provides more than enough information to justify the
magistrate’s decision.  First, the CS was not an anonymous tipster.  The CS had prior
dealings with the police department, and met with Cassidy to confirm, by photo
identification, that Arcuri was the claimed drug dealer.  Second, the CS’s information
was very specific, and Cassidy confirmed it by going to the hotel and finding the van
in the parking lot.  Third, Cassidy’s affidavit indicated he called a specific officer of
another police force, Corporal Vitale of the Wilmington Police, and asked him to
bring his dog to help with an investigation.  Because Cassidy was a narcotics officer
and contacted a specific officer of another police force to help him confirm the CS’s
tip, it is inferable that he contacted Corporal Vitale because Corporal Vitale was a
1Rivera v. State, 7 A.3d 961, 966-67 (Del. 2010) (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
4
narcotics officer who worked with a dog trained to detect narcotics.  Likewise,
because Kai was Corporal Vitale’s police dog, it is inferable that Kai was trained to
detect narcotics.2  Kai’s alert for drugs at the van and the specified hotel room
confirmed the CS’s information, and  provided independent support for the probable
cause determination. 
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.   
2See U.S. v. Rivera, 347 F. App’x 833, 837-38 (3d Cir. 2009).
5