Title: King v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JERMAINE L. KING, 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   No. 212, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§   Court Below – Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   in and for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   Cr. I.D. No. 0805039623 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
   Submitted:  October 28, 2009 
 
 
 
 
     Decided:  November 12, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED.   
 
 
Nicole M. Walker, Esquire, Office of the Public Defender, 
Wilmington, Delaware, for appellant. 
 
 
Abby Adams, Esquire, Department of Justice, Georgetown, Delaware, 
for appellee. 
 
 
 
 
HOLLAND, Justice: 
 
2
This is defendant-appellant Jermaine King’s (“King”) direct appeal 
from several drug-related judgments of conviction in the Superior Court.  In 
this appeal, King challenges the Superior Court’s denial of his motion to 
suppress drugs seized by the police.  King contends that the probation 
officers’ search of his home was unlawful.  According to King, they failed to 
corroborate the information received from a confidential informant through a 
police officer.  King also argues that the probation officers failed to provide 
the justification necessary both to substantially depart from the required 
search procedures and to conduct a nighttime search. 
We have concluded that King’s claim is without merit.  Therefore, the 
judgments of the Superior Court must be affirmed.  
Facts 
 
At approximately 8:45 p.m. on May 28, 2008, members of the 
Governor’s Task Force (“GTF”) arrested an individual who was in 
possession of 7 grams of crack cocaine.  The GTF took the individual to 
Delaware State Police Troop 3 where Trooper Hake, also a member of the 
GTF, interrogated him.  The interrogation was monitored from the GTF 
offices through the use of closed circuit television by Probation Officers 
McClure (“P.O. McClure”) and Allfather (“P.O. Allfather”), who are also 
members of the GTF. 
 
3
 
Facing significant jail time, the individual became a confidential 
informant (“CI”) and provided information on other alleged drug dealers in 
the area.  First, the CI identified a marijuana dealer by his given name, with 
whom Corporal Hake was familiar.  The CI gave facts consistent with the 
officer’s knowledge of that drug dealer, including a description of two 
automobiles he used to deal drugs and the caliber handgun he possessed.  
The CI identified a second drug dealer by given name and nickname, who 
sold crack cocaine.  Corporal Hake was aware of an individual by that 
nickname who was involved in crack cocaine sales.  The CI identified a third 
individual by her given name.   The officer was not familiar with that 
person. 
In the GTF offices, the probation officers watched and listened to the 
interview.  P.O. McClure first knew of the marijuana dealer because he had 
performed curfew checks on him.  Further intelligence confirmed the CI’s 
statement regarding the type of handgun the marijuana dealer used.  P.O. 
McClure was also familiar with King, as he had done a curfew check on him 
at 11:20 p.m. on April 21, 2008.  King, in violation of his probation, had not 
been at home.  P.O. McClure stated that when he had gone to King’s 
residence, a woman had answered the door.  This curfew check was among 
the information in the Probation and Parole computer information system 
 
4
that P.O. McClure was able to review on the computers in the GTF office 
while listening to the CI’s interview.  From this information system, P.O. 
McClure also learned that King had tested positive for cocaine during a 
random drug test on May 7, 2008.   
 
Corporal Hake instructed the CI to make supervised calls in an effort 
to set up a drug deal.  The CI used his cell phone and made five phone calls 
from his contacts list.  The first call was answered; however, the individual 
was suspicious because the CI had purchased a significant quantity of crack 
cocaine from him earlier that day, and would not make the deal.  The second 
and third phone calls were not answered.  The fourth phone call was to the 
marijuana dealer, who indicated he could not complete a transaction as he 
was waiting on his supplier for more marijuana.   
 
The fifth phone call was to be directed to King, who was listed in the 
CI’s contact list as “Dreds.”  The CI told Corporal Hake that King was 32 
years old, lived in Milford near the Salvation Army with his girlfriend and 
that, earlier in the day, King had an ounce of crack cocaine in his possession.  
The CI stated that he thought the cocaine, as well as a digital scale, would be 
in a cabinet above the stove in King’s house.  The CI called the number 
listed as “Dred,” and a female answered the phone and gave it to King.  The 
CI asked King if he still had the ounce of crack, how much he was “in for” 
 
5
and how much he was willing to sell it for.  King stated that he still had the 
cocaine, and that he had paid $900 for it.  King also told the CI that he was 
on probation and that probation officers had visited him earlier that day. 
 
Neither P.O. McClure, nor his supervisor, P.O. Allfather, could hear 
the CI’s telephone call to King, but Corporal Hake informed them that King 
had admitted to possessing cocaine in his residence.  P.O. McClure then 
confirmed that King’s supervising probation officer had visited King’s 
residence at approximately 12:49 p.m. that day, confirming what King had 
said in the phone call.  Further, P.O. McClure confirmed that King was on 
conditional release for delivery of a Schedule II narcotic. 
 
P.O. McClure decided he had reasonable grounds to believe that King 
possessed contraband, and sought approval from P.O. Allfather to conduct 
an administrative search.  P.O. Allfather had been seated next to P.O. 
McClure in the GTF room, and had observed and listened to the same 
information that P.O. McClure had observed.  P.O. McClure presented the 
following information in assessing whether there was reasonable suspicion 
to believe King was in possession of contraband to justify an administrative 
search:  first, King’s positive drug test; second, King’s failure to comply 
with curfew; third, that King was on probation for a charge of delivery of 
narcotics; and fourth, the detailed information from the CI.  The CI’s 
 
6
information was confirmed by three sources:  the case notes, P.O. McClure’s 
personal observation that King did live near the Milford Salvation Army, 
and King’s statement on the phone call that he had contraband. 
 
P.O.s McClure and Allfather did not prepare a pre-search checklist; 
instead they verbally analyzed the required factors.  In determining whether 
reasonable suspicion existed, the probation officers did not verify whether 
the CI had been reliable in the past, beyond confirming the information he 
gave about King and the others with whom they were familiar.  P.O.s 
McClure and Allfather testified that exigent circumstances required prompt 
action.  Specifically, they feared that King could be tipped off and might 
destroy or sell the drugs, and they were also concerned for the CI’s safety.  
Accordingly, the probation officers executed a search of King’s residence at 
approximately 11:45 p.m. on May 28, 2008.  The next day, they prepared 
their arrest reports. 
Stipulated Trial 
 
 
King waived his right to a jury trial and the parties agreed to a 
stipulated bench trial.  The following stipulated facts were entered into the 
record as a court exhibit: 
• Members of the Department of Correction, Probation and 
Parole, conducted an administrative search at Jermaine 
King’s residence on May 28, 2008. 
 
7
• Members of the Department of Correction, Probation and 
Parole, located approximately 26.7 grams of crack cocaine 
in a baggie and a digital scale in the top left dresser drawer 
in the master bedroom of King’s residence.  Miscellaneous 
documents (e.g., Superior Court documents, probation and 
parole documents and Sprint phone service documents) 
displaying King’s name were also located in the same 
dresser drawer with the cocaine. 
• Members of the Department of Correction located $1,000 
– worth of United States currency in a Nike Lebron high 
top men’s size 10.5 shoe in King’s residence. 
• King made the unsolicited statement, “everything in there 
is mine; she doesn’t know anything about it.”  King added, 
“all I have is 27.3 grams of cocaine in the bedroom.” 
• King provided a statement at Troop 3.  King was properly 
advised of his Miranda rights by the Delaware State 
Police.  King knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily 
waived his rights under Miranda.  The statement was 
recorded on DVD.  The State will offer the statement in its 
entirety without redactions. 
• The defense will stipulate to the Medical Examiner’s 
report which identifies the substance seized from Jermaine 
King’s bedroom as cocaine and the weight of the cocaine 
at 25.79 grams. 
• The defense will stipulate to the chain of custody and will 
not require the State to call each witness in the chain. 
• The State will call Detective Darrin Short to testify as an 
expert.  The defense will stipulate to Detective Short’s 
expertise. 
 
King was found guilty of one count of Trafficking in 10 to 50 grams 
of cocaine, one count of Possession With Intent to Deliver, one count of 
Maintaining a Dwelling and two counts of Possession of Drug 
Paraphernalia.  Pursuant to a motion by the State, King was sentenced as a 
 
8
habitual offender and received twenty years at Level V, plus probation.  This 
direct appeal followed. 
Reasonable Basis to Search King’s Home 
 
 
King contends the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to 
suppress the evidence seized during the May 28, 2008, search.  According to 
King, the probation officers’ search of King’s home was unlawful because 
they failed to independently corroborate the information received from the 
CI, through a police officer, and failed to provide the justification necessary 
both to substantially depart from the required search procedures and to 
conduct a night time search. 
“[P]robationers do not surrender all of their privacy rights, and 
probation officers can only conduct searches when they have a reasonable 
basis to do so.”1  Probation and Parole Procedure 7.19, promulgated under 
the authority granted by title 11, section 4321 of the Delaware Code, 
mandates that, prior to conducting an administrative search:  
The officer and supervisor will hold a case conference using the 
Search Checklist as a guideline.  During the case conference, 
the supervisor will review the “Yes” or “No” responses of the 
officer to the following search decision factors: 
1) 
Sufficient reason to believe the offender possesses 
contraband. 
2) 
Sufficient reason to believe the offender is in 
violation of probation/parole. 
                                          
 
1 Sierra v. State, 958 A.2d 825, 832 (Del. 2008). 
 
9
3) 
Information from a reliable informant, indicating 
offender possesses contraband or is violating the 
law. 
4) 
Information from the informant is corroborated. 
5) 
Approval obtained from Supervisor, Manager, or 
Director.2 
 
Procedure 7.19 requires that probation officers assess the reliability of their 
informants.  Specifically, it requires consideration of the following factors:  
“was the information detailed, consistent, was the informant reliable in the 
past, and consider the reason why the informant is supplying the 
information.”3 
 
This Court has held that administrative searches of probationer homes 
require: 
[O]nly reasonable grounds, even if the probation officers do not 
satisfy each technical requirement of the search and seizure 
regulations of the Department of Correction.  The special nature 
of probationary supervision justifies a departure from the usual 
warrant and probable cause requirements for searches, but a 
search of a probationer’s home must be reasonable.4 
 
Here, in assessing whether there was a reasonable basis to conduct the 
search, the probation officers considered:  King’s positive drug test; King’s 
failure to comply with curfew; that King was on probation for a charge of 
                                          
 
2 Delaware Department of Correction, Bureau of Community Corrections, Probation and 
Parole Procedure 7.19 (“Probation and Parole Procedure 7.19”), § VI.A.6 (amended 
effective June 5, 2001); see Culver v. State, 956 A.2d 5, 10 (Del. 2008). 
3 Probation and Parole Procedure 7.19, § VI.E.3.b. 
4 Donald v. State, 903 A.2d 315, 319 (Del. 2006) (internal citation omitted). 
 
10
delivery of narcotics; and the detailed information from the CI that they 
were able to confirm from the case notes, P.O. McClure’s personal 
observation that King did live near the Milford Salvation Army, and King’s 
statement on the phone call that he had contraband.  These factors combine 
to form a reasonable basis to suspect that King possessed contraband in 
violation of his probation.   
King contends that this Court’s decision in Culver v. State5 requires 
suppression of the contraband seized.  This case is distinguishable from 
Culver, however.  In Culver, the tip was from an anonymous caller who 
stated there must be drug activity because people were coming and going 
from the dwelling.6  Here, the CI placed a phone call in the presence of the 
interviewing officer.  During that call, King verified that he was on 
probation, that a probation officer had visited him that day and that he was in 
possession of crack cocaine.   
In King’s case, the probation officers satisfied all five requirements 
for an administrative search under Procedure 7.19.  The admission by King 
during the phone call with the CI that he possessed cocaine satisfies the first 
two factors.  The third factor is satisfied by the numerous facts provided by 
the CI that the police officer and probation officers were able to verify.  The 
                                          
 
5 Culver v. State, 956 A.2d at 19.   
6 Id. at 11. 
 
11
fourth factor is satisfied by King’s own statement verifying the CI’s 
assertion that King had crack cocaine in his dwelling.  The fifth factor was 
satisfied because P.O. McClure obtained authorization from P.O. Allfather.   
Departure from Procedures and Night Time Search 
 
Nevertheless, King contends that the Superior Court erred in denying 
his motion to suppress because the probation officers did not follow 
Department Procedure in authorizing and conducting the administrative 
search.  King further contends that the Superior Court erred in denying his 
motion to suppress because the evidence was seized during a night time 
search.  King cites no Delaware precedent prohibiting such a search.7  
Procedure 7.19 does not require exigent circumstances for a nighttime 
search, but does require completing the search checklist before the search.  
The search checklist that the probation officers completed states, “[i]f the 
time of the arrest or search is after 10:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m., then 
reasons must be stated to justify a night time action.”   
As a condition of King’s probation, he signed a document notifying 
him that he was subject to search at any time.  The CI made the first of his 
five supervised phone calls at 10:35 p.m.  The last phone call that night was 
                                          
 
7 The State, on the other hand, cites to Himmage v. State, 496 P.2d 763 (Nev. 1972), in 
support of its proposition that no exigent circumstances are required to perform a night 
time administrative search. 
 
12
made to King, who was awake and stated he was still in possession of crack 
cocaine.  P.O. Allfather testified that he “justified the need to do a search 
due to the fact that the destruction of evidence is a timely issue.”  Even 
assuming that exigent circumstances are required, the record supports the 
Superior Court’s finding of exigent circumstances.   
In Fuller v. State,8 this Court upheld an administrative search despite 
the officers’ and supervisor’s departure from Department Procedure: 
In obtaining that approval, the officers and the supervisor 
considered the information that the Department had and 
whether it provided sufficient grounds to search.  The purpose 
of the regulations is to ensure that the Department has sufficient 
grounds before undertaking a search.  The individual 
procedures advance that goal but are not independently 
necessary, as demonstrated by the fact that the regulations 
explicitly state exceptions for when the search checklist need 
not be used.  Even if the officers did not follow each technical 
requirement of the search regulations before searching Fuller, 
they did satisfy those that affect the reasonableness inquiry 
under the United States and Delaware Constitutions.9 
 
Similarly, although the probation officers may not have followed every 
aspect of the Department Procedures, they utilized the factors properly to 
ascertain that there was reasonable suspicion that King possessed contraband 
in violation of his probation.   
                                          
 
8 Fuller v. State, 844 A.2d 290 (Del. 2004). 
9 Id. at 292 (internal citation omitted). 
 
13
Conclusion 
 
The Superior Court properly denied King’s motion to suppress.  The 
judgments of the Superior Court are affirmed.