Title: Stewart v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PRESTON STEWART,  
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 80, 2002 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
)  Cr. A. Nos. IN00-12-0004 thru 0007 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  Cr. ID. No. 0006001556 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  June 19, 2002 
Decided:  June 21, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 21st day of June, 2002, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
argument and given our standard of review it appears to the Court: 
1.  That the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis 
that at the time the police officer confronted and seized the Appellant’s person they 
had probable cause to arrest him.1 
2.  The police acted upon information given to them by a security guard 
whom they knew was employed at a State facility.  The information supplied 
suggested that the security guard saw a person meeting the Appellant’s description 
                                          
 
1 Foraker v. State, 394 A.2d 208, 213 (Del. 1978); State v. Bowden, 273 A.2d 481, 483-84 (Del. 
1971). 
 
2
selling drugs in the vicinity where the police found Appellant.  The police realized 
that the security guard knew that the police knew him as well as where and how to 
find him if he were to supply them with false or misleading information. 
3.  The police reasonably and fairly concluded that the information supplied 
by the security guard was firsthand, likely to be accurate, untainted by improper 
motive, and, therefore, reliable.  The police reason to believe that the Appellant 
had been dealing drugs was enhanced when Appellant confirmed the security 
guard’s information by not only meeting the description given but also by 
appearing “startled” at their sudden arrival and reacting to it by twice attempting to 
avoid contact with the officers after being confronted and asked to remove his hand 
from his pockets.  The Appellant’s location, description and actions confirmed 
reliable information directly tying him to observed drug sales.  Seizing Appellant’s 
person as he attempted to leave the police presence was justified by probable cause 
to believe he had been engaged in selling drugs.  The contraband disgorged in the 
process of effecting the arrest was properly seized and admissible at trial. 
4.  Our determination that probable cause existed to arrest the Appellant 
validates, a fortiori, the Superior Court’s conclusion that there was a valid cause 
for detention under 10 Del.C. 1902.  Moreover, “if lawful cause of arrest exists, the 
 
3
arrest is lawful even though the officer . . . gives a reason that does not justify 
arrest.”2 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
_/s/ Myron T. Steele________________ 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 
2 10 Del.C. § 105.