Case Title: Delvalle v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 174, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-09-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JONATHAN DELVALLE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  No. 174, 2013 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  Court Below – Superior Court 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  in and for New Castle County 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§  I.D. No. 1204008839 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
    Submitted:  August 28, 2013 
 
 
 
 
       Decided:  September 10, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 10th day of September 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jonathan Delvalle (“Delvalle”), 
appeals from a Superior Court order convicting him of Possession of a 
Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited, Possession of a Weapon in a Safe 
School Zone, Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon, and Possession of 
Marijuana.  Delvalle raises one claim on appeal.  Delvalle argues that the 
trial court abused its discretion when it held that the officers who detained 
him possessed a reasonable articulable suspicion to continue detaining him 
despite one officer’s knowledge that they had detained the wrong person.   
2 
 
 
2) 
We have concluded Delvalle’s argument is without merit.  
Therefore, the judgments of the Superior Court must be affirmed. 
 
3) 
In December 2010, Wilmington Police Officers Nolan and 
Lynch were patrolling the area surrounding the 300 block of North Broom 
Street in a fully-marked police vehicle when they observed Delvalle walking 
on the sidewalk.1  Officer Lynch believed Delvalle to be Jose Fernandini 
(“Chomo”), a light-skinned Hispanic male who was wanted by police in 
connection with a recent burglary.2  Officer Lynch had previous encounters 
with Chomo, and after seeing Delvalle’s face, told Officer Nolan that 
Delvalle matched the description of Chomo.3   
4) 
After Delvalle briefly disappeared, the officers were able to 
circle the block and relocate him.4  Officer Nolan exited the vehicle, and 
immediately handcuffed Delvalle.  Thereafter, Officer Lynch exited the 
vehicle and immediately expressed uncertainty as to whether Delvalle was 
Chomo, stating, “I don’t think that’s him.”  Officer Nolan testified he did not 
hear this statement.   
                                          
 
1 State v. Delvalle, Del. Super., ID No. 1012004301, Scott, C. (Nov. 28, 2012) (ORDER).   
2 Id. at 2-3.  Chomo had been charged with Burglary in the Second Degree and Offensive 
Touching.  
3 Id.  
4 Id.  
3 
 
5) 
The officers then tried to verify Delvalle’s identity, but he could 
not produce any form of identification or tell the officers his social security 
number.5  Delvalle told them that his name was “Jonathan Rodriguez” and 
that his date of birth was March 22, 1987.  The officers were unable to verify 
this information on DELJIS,6 and considered Delvalle’s nervous behavior to 
be suspicious.  The officers then took Delvalle to the police station for a 
two-hour detention in order to identify him.7  
6) 
On the way to the station, Officer Lynch managed to find an 
individual in the DELJIS system that had the same name as that provided by 
Delvalle, but a different date of birth.  Based on DELJIS, the individual had 
four active capiases for his arrest.   Delvalle then confessed that he had 
provided the officers a false date of birth because he had multiple capiases.   
7) 
Once at the station, the officers asked Delvalle if he had 
anything in his pockets, to which he answered in the affirmative.  A search 
of Delvalle’s person yielded ten small baggies of marijuana.  In order to take 
Delvalle into Turnkey,8 the officers conducted an additional search in which 
                                          
 
5 Delvalle said “he didn’t know his social security number and hesitated when answering 
that he went to high school in New Jersey.” 
6 DELJIS stands for the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System.   
7 “Before placing him in the police car, the officers patted him down for weapons, but 
found no weapons or contraband.”    
8 The procedure of the Wilmington Police department when taking an individual into 
Turnkey is to search his belongings, take property from him, and secure him so he cannot 
harm himself or others.   
4 
 
they found a loaded handgun in Delvalle’s waistband.  The officers removed 
the handgun and immediately read Delvalle his Miranda rights.  
8) 
A Grand Jury returned a four-count indictment against Delvalle.  
Delvalle filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, which was denied after a 
hearing.  After a bench trial, the Superior Court found Delvalle guilty of all 
charges and sentenced him to an aggregate of six years at Level V.  This 
appeal followed.   
9) 
We review a Superior Court’s decision to grant or deny a 
Motion to Suppress for abuse of discretion.9  This Court examines the trial 
court’s legal conclusions de novo for errors in formulating or applying legal 
precepts.10  Factual findings are reviewed to determine “whether there was 
sufficient evidence to support the findings and whether those findings were 
clearly erroneous.”11 
10) 
Although Delvalle concedes that the officers initially had 
reasonable suspicion to stop him, he contends that the requisite reasonable 
suspicion was “erased” when Officer Lynch realized that he was not Chomo.  
In support of that argument, Delvalle points to three occasions on the record 
that he contends show that the officers had knowledge that Delvalle was not 
                                          
 
9 State v. Holden, 60 A.3d 1110, 1113 (Del. 2013).  
10 Jackson v. State, 990 A.2d 1281, 1288 (Del. 2009).   
11 Jenkins v. State, 970 A.2d 154, 157 (Del. 2009) (citation omitted) (internal quotations 
omitted).   
5 
 
Chomo, and thus, no longer had reasonable suspicion to detain him.  First, 
Delvalle points out that Lynch stated, “I don’t think that’s him,” upon 
exiting the police vehicle and attempting to identify Delvalle.  Secondly, 
Delvalle points to the following exchange between counsel for Delvalle and 
Officer Lynch:  
Mr. Collins: Okay. With that said, you find out it wasn’t 
Chomo.  At that point wouldn’t you just say, ‘Thank you, 
goodbye’? 
 
Officer Lynch:  We wanted to identify him, to make sure he 
didn’t have any outstanding warrants. 
 
Third, Devalle points to a second interaction between his 
counsel and Officer Lynch in support of his claim: 
Mr. Collins: You were interested in stopping the individual 
because you thought he was Fernardini, a wanted suspect; 
right? 
 
Officer Lynch: Yes 
 
Mr. Collins: You learned it was not Fernardini; right? 
 
Officer Lynch: Right 
 
Mr. Collins: Okay.  At that point, you had no further reason to 
be in contact with this individual; right? 
 
Officer Lynch: Other than to verify his identity.  
 
11) 
The success of Delvalle’s argument depends on whether the 
Officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion throughout the whole of the 
6 
 
“investigatory stop.”12  We define reasonable suspicion “as the officer’s 
ability ‘to point to specific and articulable facts, which taken together with 
rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrants the intrusion.’”13  
“In determining whether reasonable articulable suspicion exists, we ‘must 
examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the situation as 
viewed through the eyes of a reasonable, trained police officer in the same or 
similar circumstances, combining objective facts with such an officer’s 
subjective interpretation of those facts.’”14  In making such a determination, 
we rely upon title 11, section 1902, which states:  
(a) A peace officer may stop any person abroad, or in a public 
place, who the officer has reasonable ground to suspect is 
committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and 
may demand the person's name, address, business abroad and 
destination. 
 
(b) Any person so questioned who fails to give identification or 
explain the person's actions to the satisfaction of the officer 
may be detained and further questioned and investigated. 
 
(c) The total period of detention provided for by this section 
shall not exceed 2 hours. The detention is not an arrest and shall 
not be recorded as an arrest in any official record. At the end of 
the detention the person so detained shall be released or be 
arrested and charged with a crime.15 
 
                                          
 
12 See Jones v. State, 745 A.2d 856, 861 (“For the purpose of this analysis, ‘reasonable 
ground’ as used in Section 1902(a) has the same meaning as reasonable and articulable 
suspicion.”). 
13 Holden v. State, 23 A.3d 843, 847 (Del. 2011) (citation omitted).  
14 Id. (citation omitted).  
15  Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1902 (2013) (emphasis added).   
7 
 
12) 
In Bunting v. State, police officers stopped an individual who 
matched the description of a man who had recently robbed a convenience 
store in a nearby neighborhood.16  When asked for identification, the 
individual could produce none and gave the officers a fictitious name.17  He 
was then taken to the police station to determine his identity, where it was 
established that police sought the individual on a robbery warrant.18  The 
individual filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, which was denied by the 
Superior Court, and affirmed by this Court on appeal.19  On appeal, we held, 
“[h]ere, [the defendant] was detained to determine his actual identity (which 
resulted in probable cause to arrest for criminal impersonation and a diligent, 
prompt arraignment on that charge) and to await processing by Newark 
Police on a warrant for an unrelated robbery charge.  [The defendant’s] 
claim that his detention was improper on these facts has no merit.”20 
13) 
Similarly, in Brown v. State, this Court, in addressing a Motion 
to Suppress, held, “[e]ven if a seizure occurred, on the facts of this case the 
police had a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify an 
                                          
 
16 Bunting v. State, 2004 WL 2297395 at *1 (Del. Oct. 5, 2004).  It is important to note 
that, unlike in this case, the suspect in Bunting “abruptly changed direction and entered 
the passenger’s side of a nearby van” when he saw the police officers’ car.  Here, while 
there was no abrupt change in direction, officer Lynch testified that Delvalle 
“disappeared” after seeing the police vehicle. (A33.)   
17 Id.  
18 Id. 
19 Id.  
20 Id. at *2.   
8 
 
investigatory stop under title 11, section 1902 after [the appellant] provided 
false identification to the officers.”21 
14) 
In this case, there is no question that the officers initially had 
reasonable suspicion to stop Delvalle, as he matched the description of a 
wanted burglar.  The record shows that upon stopping Delvalle, Officer 
Lynch was not entirely sure whether Delvalle was Chomo.  He asked for 
identification pursuant to section 1902(a).  Delvalle failed to produce any 
documentation proving his identity, and could not tell the officers his social 
security number.  This peculiar response did not satisfy the officers.   
15) 
Accordingly, the officers entered the name and date of birth 
given to them by Delvalle in DELJIS.  When no match was found, the 
Officers decided to further investigate, pursuant to Section 1902(b), by 
taking Delvalle to the police station for fingerprinting in an attempt to 
discover his true identity.  It was on the way to the station that Delvalle 
confessed to giving the officers a false date of birth and having multiple 
capiases.  Delvalle’s irregular responses, nervous behavior, and the fact that 
                                          
 
21 Brown v. State, 2011 WL 5319900 at *3 (Del. Oct. 31, 2011) (citation omitted).  See 
also Stafford v. State, 59 A.3d 1223 (Del. 2012) (finding that probable cause existed to 
arrest a suspect who could not produce any identification; gave a false name, address, and 
birth date; and could not be found in DELJIS despite claiming to be a Delaware resident). 
9 
 
he provided a fictitious date of birth gave the police a continued reasonable 
articulable suspicion to continue their detainment and investigation.22   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgments 
of the Superior Court are AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
22 Officer Nolan stated in his testimony: “[Delvalle’s] behavior was raising my suspicions 
about if he was in possession of anything or if he had some outstanding capias or maybe 
had a violation of probation that he didn’t want to tell us.”