1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,

v. 

MICHELLE CLIFTON,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

I.D. # 2401004981

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Submitted: June 7, 2024

Decided: June 27, 2024

Upon Defendant’s Motion to Suppress – GRANTED.

I. INTRODUCTION

In early January 2024, Wilmington Police received information from a “past

proven and reliable” confidential source (“CS”), that a woman known as “Missy” is 

a drug dealer who carries a firearm. The CS provided an address where Missy lives 

and that she drives a white van with expired registration. The CS also stated that 

Missy’s two sons, Dwayne and Kelly, live at the same address and Kelly carries a 

firearm. Police detectives identified “Missy” as Defendant Michelle Clifton 

(“Clifton”) who resides at the address stated by the CS. 

On January 11, 2024, Wilmington Police were surveilling Clifton’s residence

when they observed Clifton leave her home with three other people, get into a white 

van with expired registration, and drive away. Police followed the van and a few 

blocks later police executed a traffic stop for the expired registration. Clifton 
2

consented to a search of the vehicle and her purse, which contained a small amount 

of suspected heroin/fentanyl and a digital scale. 

The same day as the traffic stop, the officers applied for and obtained a search 

warrant to search Clifton’s residence. In his probable cause affidavit, Detective 

William Martin (“Det. Martin”) included information provided by the CS and stated 

that “[t]hrough [his] training and experience it is common for drug dealers to only 

carry enough drugs on them to complete a sale and to keep the majority of it in a 

residence to avoid having it seized by law enforcement.”1

The search of the home resulted in seizure of suspected heroin/fentanyl, a 

firearm, and ammunition.

Clifton filed a Motion to Suppress2(the “Motion”), seeking to exclude the 

evidence seized from her home, arguing there is insufficient factual information to 

support probable cause to establish a nexus to her residence and that the barebones

CS information was not sufficiently verified. 

The State argues that the police sufficiently verified the CS tip by conducting 

their own “independent surveillance and investigation and were able to verify and 

corroborate almost every detail.”

3

1 D.I. 16, Ex. A, at ¶ 1.B.

2 D.I. 16.

3 D.I. 22, at ¶19.
3

The probable cause affidavit was deficient in several respects. It contained a 

conclusory statement of the CS’ past proven reliability; the information provided by 

the CS did not contain any information linking the alleged drug dealing to the 

residence; and, it otherwise failed to contain a factual basis to establish a nexus to 

the residence and the alleged illegal activity. Accordingly, Clifton carried her 

burden to show that the search warrant lacked probable cause and therefore, the

Motion is GRANTED.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Because the Court’s analysis is limited to the four-corners of the affidavit, the 

following facts are derived solely from the warrant application and probable cause 

affidavit, which was attached as Exhibit A to the Motion.4

Det. Martin, a sworn member of the Wilmington Police Department with 

seven years of police experience, relayed the following facts in his probable cause 

affidavit:

During the second week of January 2024, Detective H. Cuadrado received 

information from “a past proven and reliable confidential source” in reference to a 

female known as “Missy”, who resides at 2703 N Pine Street, Wilmington, Delaware

(the “Residence”).

5

 The CS went on to advise that “Missy is a drug dealer and carries 

4 D.I. 16, Ex. A.

5

Id. at ¶ 1.A.
4

a firearm.”

6

 According to the CS, Missy lives at the Residence with her sons 

Dwayne and Kelly, who “also carries a firearm.”7 Finally, the CS advised that 

Clifton “utilizes a white in color van with an expired registration.”8

Police identified “Missy” through a DELJIS inquiry as Clifton, who resides 

at the Residence.

9 The DELJIS inquiry also revealed that Clifton has a prior felony 

conviction for fraud.10

A DELJIS inquiry identified: (i) “Dwayne” as Dwayne Clifton, who has a 

prior felony conviction for burglary and who was wanted in connection with two 

outstanding warrants for burglary and resisting arrest;11 (ii) “Kelly” as Kelly 

Clifton;

12 and that they both lived at the Residence. 

On January 11, 2024, Det. Martin and assisting officers conducted 

surveillance on the Residence.

13

 Det. Gibson observed a black female exit the front 

door of the residence and enter a white Chrysler Town and Country with three other 

subjects.14 A NCIC inquiry showed that the vehicle had not been registered since 

6

Id.

7

Id.

8

Id.

9

Id.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Id. at ¶ 1.B.

14 Id.
5

2022.15 Police followed the van for a few blocks and then conducted a traffic stop

based on the expired registration.

16

 

Clifton, who was driving the vehicle, was removed from the vehicle.17 Clifton 

consented to a search of the vehicle and her purse.18 In the purse was one bundle of 

suspected heroin/fentanyl (approximately 13 bags, approximately 0.091 grams) 

stamped “Kiss” and one loose bag (approximately .007 grams) of suspected 

heroin/fentanyl stamped “Team Number 1,” and a black digital scale.19

During the stop, “Jimmy Waters20 spontaneously uttered that his nephew, 

(Dwayne Clifton ...), was in possession of a firearm. Waters did not provide any 

further details.”21

Det. Martin also states in the affidavit that “[t]hrough [his] training and 

experience it is common for drug dealers to only carry enough drugs on them to 

complete a sale and to keep the majority of it in a residence to avoid having it seized 

by law enforcement.”22

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 The affidavit does not provide any further information on Mr. Waters. 

21 D.I. 16 at ¶ 1.B.

22 Id.
6

Paragraph 2 of the affidavit provides a list of drug traffickers’ behaviors, 

based on Det. Martin’s training and experience. The list of A through H, identifies

behaviors such as: placing assets in names other than the dealer’s own name; 

maintaining large amounts U.S. currency; secreting records of drug transactions in 

locations in their residence; utilizing banks and business fronts to attempt to 

legitimize their profits; maintaining associates’ contact information in books or 

papers; taking payment in stolen items such as TVs; having unexplained wealth; and 

transporting only “enough drugs that they will need for a sale” and maintaining “the 

other drugs at a secure location, including but not limited to their residence.”23 

Based on the affidavit, police applied for a search warrant on January 11, 

2024, to search the Residence for any heroin or related drug paraphernalia, indicia 

of occupancy, books and records relating to transporting or selling drugs, books and 

records relating to transferring or laundering money, currency over $100 in close 

proximity to any heroin or multiples of VCRs or camera equipment, firearms, and 

any electronic devices, including cell phones, “used in furtherance of the distribution 

of illegal drugs.”

24

 

The warrant was issued, and a search of the Residence resulted in the seizure 

of two plastic bags of suspected heroin/fentanyl, containing 2.9g and 1.9g of the 

23 Id. at ¶ 2, H.

24 Id.
7

substance; 5 bundles of suspected heroin/fentanyl (.455g) stamped “Team #1”; 2 

bundles of suspected heroin/fentanyl, stamped “Kiss” (.132g); Delaware 

identification for Clifton’s brother; a firearm; and 43 .25 caliber bullets.

Clifton was indicted on the following charges: (i) drug dealing, (ii) drug 

possession, (iii) possession, purchase, ownership, or control of a firearm by a person 

prohibited, (iv) possession, purchase, ownership, or control of ammunition by a 

person prohibited, (v) possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, (vi) possession 

of a firearm during the commission of a felony, (vii) conspiracy second degree, and 

(viii) possession of drug paraphernalia.

The Court held oral argument on the Motion on June 7, 2024, during which 

the parties presented argument. Other than the warrant application and affidavit, no 

evidence was presented.

III. THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. The Motion

Clifton argues that the probable cause affidavit is conclusory, relies on generic 

statements regarding the detective’s general knowledge about drug traffickers, and 

lacks a sufficient nexus to permit a finding that the Residence contained contraband. 

Further, Clifton argues that the affidavit does not: (i) show that the CS had first-hand 

information, (ii) detail the alleged drug dealing, or (iii) contain facts to suggest that 

Clifton kept drugs at the Residence.
8

B. The State’s response

The State argues that the officers sufficiently verified the tip from the past 

proven reliable CS by conducting their own surveillance and investigation, which 

allowed them to verify and corroborate almost every detail. The State further 

contends the officers had probable cause to believe that they would find illegal drugs 

and firearms in Clifton’s residence and that the issuing magistrate’s probable cause 

determination should be given great deference. Therefore, as the State posits, when 

considering the totality of the circumstances, the magistrate had a substantial basis 

to conclude that probable cause existed to search the residence and the search 

warrant was legally sufficient.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A defendant may move to suppress evidence under Superior Court Criminal 

Rules 41(f) and 12(b)(3). “It is well-settled that the Court must employ a ‘fourcorners’ test to determine whether an application for a warrant demonstrates 

probable cause.”25 Under this test, a reviewing court must determine whether the 

supporting affidavit “set[s] forth sufficient facts on its face for a judicial officer to 

form a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that seizable 

25 State v. Sisson, 883 A.2d 868, 876 (Del. Super. 2005), aff’d 903 A.2d 288 (Del. 2006) (citing 

Pierson v. State, 338 A.2d 571, 573 (Del. 1975)); State v. Cannon, 2007 WL 1849022, at *3 (Del. 

Super. June 27, 2007) (“The face of the affidavit must present adequate facts to allow a reasonable 

person to conclude that an offense has been committed and that seizable property would be found 

in a particular place or on a particular person.”).
9

property would be found in a particular place.”26 “Delaware courts ... require that 

the affidavit contain specific factual information adequate to support probable cause 

to search a residence.”27

The initial reviewing judicial officer is owed “great deference.”

28

 

Notwithstanding this deference, the court’s “‘substantial basis’ review requires [that 

it] determine whether ‘the warrant was invalid because the magistrate’s probablecause determination reflected an improper analysis of the totality of the 

circumstances....’”

29

To successfully challenge the validity of a search warrant, a defendant must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the search was unlawful.

30

 Any 

evidence obtained from an illegal search or seizure must be excluded from trial.31

V. ANALYSIS

A. The test for a probable cause affidavit

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, 

Section 6, of the Delaware Constitution, protect against unreasonable searches and 

26 Sisson, 883 A.2d at 876 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

27 Cannon, 2007 WL 1849022, at *4.

28 State v. Holmes, 2023 WL 3991641, at *2 (Del. Super. June 13, 2023) (citations omitted).

29 LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103, 1108 (Del. 2008).

30 State v. Chaffier, 2023 WL 1872284, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 17, 2023); Cannon, 2007 WL 

1849022, at *2 (citations omitted).

31 Jones v. State, 745 A.2d 856, 872-73 (Del. 1999).
10

seizures.32 Under the United States and Delaware Constitutions, a search warrant 

may be issued only upon the showing of probable cause.33 

“An affidavit in support of a search warrant must, within the four-corners of 

the affidavit, set forth facts adequate for a judicial officer to form a reasonable belief 

that an offense has been committed and the property to be seized will be found in a 

particular place.”34 In determining whether probable cause exists to obtain a search 

warrant, Delaware courts apply a “totality of the circumstances” test.35 Where a 

warrant application is based on an informant’s tip, the court must scrutinize “the 

reliability or veracity of the informant, the basis of the informant’s knowledge, and 

‘the degree to which the tip is corroborated by independent police surveillance and 

information.’”

36

 “If an informant’s tip is sufficiently corroborated by independent 

police work, the tip may form the basis for probable cause even though nothing is 

known about the informant’s credibility.”37 

“Unlike an arrest warrant, a search warrant is not directed at a person, but 

rather at the particular place where police have probable cause to believe that 

32 Pollard v. State, 284 A.3d 41, 45 (Del. 2022).

33 U.S. Const. amend. IV; Del. Const. art. I, § 6; Fink v. State, 817 A.2d 781, 786 (Del. 2003).

34 Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288, 296 (Del. 2006).

35 Id.

36 Valentine v. State, 207 A.3d 566, 572 (Del. 2019) (citing Brown v. State, 897 A.2d 748, 715 

(Del. 2006); Holden v. State, 60 A.3d 1110, 1114 (Del. 2013); and LeGrande, 947 A.2d at 1108).

37 LeGrande, 947 A.2d at 1108 (citing Hubbard v. State, 782 A.2d 264, 2001 WL 1089664, at *4 

(Del. Sept. 5, 2001) (Table); McAllister v. State, 807 A.2d 1119, 1124 (Del. 2002)).
11

evidence is located.”38 “Probable cause to search depends upon the existence of a 

logical nexus between the items sought and the place to be searched.”39 “[T]he 

factual showing necessary to establish probable cause to search a residence is twofold: first, there must be probable cause that a crime was committed, and second, 

there must be probable cause to believe that evidence of such crime can be found at 

the residence.”40

B. Information provided by the CS

“It is now settled that the assessment of informants’ tips must take into 

account the reliability or veracity of the informant, the basis of the informant’s 

knowledge, and ‘the degree to which the tip is corroborated by independent police 

surveillance and information.’”41 When the affidavit contains conclusory statements 

regarding the informant’s past reliability, “it interferes with the issuing magistrate’s 

ability to make an independent determination regarding the informant’s 

reliability.”42

Here, the affidavit stated in conclusory terms that the CS was “past proven 

and reliable.” It provided no further information from which a reviewing magistrate 

38 Cannon, 2007 WL 1849022, at *4.

39 Id. (citations omitted) (“Requiring this nexus upholds the probable cause requirements of the 

Federal and State constitutions and properly maintains the distinction between probable cause to 

arrest and probable cause to search.”).

40 Id. (citations omitted).

41 Valentine, 207 A.3d at 572 (citation omitted).

42 Id. (citation omitted).
12

could make an independent determination of the reliability of the information 

provided by the CS.

The State argues that the CS’ reliability was shown by police corroboration 

through the independent investigation. Specifically, the police corroborated that 

Clifton lives at the Residence with her sons and that she drives a white van with 

expired tags. This information, however, is not evidence of criminal activity. The 

police did not corroborate the tip that Clifton carries a firearm or that Kelly carries 

a firearm. To the extent any criminal activity was corroborated, Clifton was found 

to possess a small amount of drugs at the time of the traffic stop. This is insufficient 

to establish the CS’ credibility.43 

The basis of the informant’s information “can be highly relevant in 

determining the value of his report.’”44 Here, Det. Martin’s affidavit does not 

disclose how the CS learned that Missy is a drug dealer and carries a gun (was it 

based on first-hand knowledge?); how fresh or stale the CS’ information was; the 

nature of the CS’ relationship to Clifton; or whether the CS had ever been in the 

43 See id. (detectives’ affidavit, which contained no information about the manner in which the 

informant had proved to be reliable in the past, such as, detailing whether their prior tips had shown 

to be accurate or led to arrests or convictions, was found to be insufficient to establish the 

informant’s credibility).

44 Id. at 573.
13

Residence.45 “Thus, there is nothing in the substance of the tip itself that sheds light 

on the purported basis of the informant’s knowledge.”46 

Lack of detail of how the informant came about the information can be 

excused in circumstances where “‘sufficient detail [is provided so] that the 

magistrate may know that he is relying on something more substantial than a casual 

rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s 

general reputation.’”

47 Here, the affidavit provides no such detail. The CS did not 

provide a description of the type of drugs Clifton allegedly sold, the amount of drugs 

she allegedly possessed, or the type of firearm she allegedly carried. Indeed, the 

affidavit didn’t even relate her alleged drug dealing activity with the Residence. 

Thus, the affidavit does not contain any self-verifying detail. 

C. Other indicia of reliability

The CS’ tips are not sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. 

However, Det. Martin’s affidavit contains additional information. Thus, the Court 

must determine whether there “were there other indicia of reliability providing a 

substantial basis for the magistrate’s conclusion that probable cause existed?”

48

45 See id. at 573-74.

46 Id. at 574.

47 Id. (citation omitted).

48 Id.
14

The affidavit provides no other factual basis to relate the alleged drug dealing 

to Clifton or the Residence. Rather, the affidavit contains generic statements of how 

drug dealers behave. The State admitted that of the eight listed behaviors in 

paragraph 2, only one could possibly relate to Clifton: “drug traffickers only 

transport enough drugs that they will need for the sale. They will maintain the other 

drugs at a secured location, including but not limited to their residence.”49 In 

essence, the affidavit establishes that drug dealers keep drugs places other than on 

or about their person. This fails to provide any nexus between the alleged drug 

activity and the Residence.50 Permitting a warrant that lacks fact-based connection 

between the alleged illegal activity and the subject’s residence “risks licensing 

‘virtually automatic searches of residences of persons arrested for narcotics 

offenses.”51

* * *

The CS’ reliability has not been shown through the affidavit, either by 

examples of past proven reliability or specific details of the illegal activity. Further, 

the affidavit lacks a fact-based connection between the illegal activity and the 

49 D.I. 16, Ex. A, ¶ 2, H (emphasis added).

50 The affidavit also fails to present sufficient facts to form a reasonable belief that Clifton was a 

drug dealer. While the affidavit identifies the drugs seized through the traffic stop, there are no 

facts in the affidavit indicating that the amount of drugs in her possession was indicative of drug 

dealing, as opposed to a personal use amount, for example. 

51 Cannon, 2007 WL 1849022, at *4 (citation omitted).
15

Residence. Considering the totality of the circumstances, as the Court must, Clifton 

has carried her burden to show that the search warrant did not provide sufficient facts 

to form a reasonable belief that an offense had been committed and that evidence of 

such criminal activity would be found at the Residence. 

This finding is consistent with the rulings in State v. Cannon,

52 LeGrande v. 

State,

53 and Valentine v. State.54

In Cannon, informants told police that Cannon was selling large quantities of 

drugs and provided specific street locations of such activity. The informants also 

provided an address for Cannon, identified the car he drove, and stated that he carried 

a firearm. After police corroborated Cannon’s address and that the car was 

registered in his name, they conducted surveillance at Cannon’s home.55 Police 

watched Cannon leave his residence and make a stop, where others got into his car 

for a few minutes. In another stop, Cannon got into a silver car for a few minutes. 

After Cannon returned to his car, police stopped the silver car. The driver reported 

having received cocaine from Cannon.

56

Police applied for a warrant to search Cannon’s residence after the 

surveillance, relying in part on the tipsters’ information and in part on the officer’s 

52 2007 WL 1849022.

53 947 A.2d 1103.

54 207 A.3d 566.

55 Cannon, 2007 WL 1849022, at *1.

56 Id., at *2.
16

statement that drug dealers only carry what they need for a sale and keep “the other 

drugs at a secured location, including but not limited [to] their residence.”57

The court found that the affidavit did not show the informants’ past proven 

reliability and there was no indication that “Cannon was using his residence to deal 

drugs or to store drugs, drug paraphernalia, or any other evidence of drug 

transactions.”58 The police investigation was also found to be lacking, as there were 

no controlled buys and no evidence of Cannon leaving or entering his residence with 

a bag or anything else that would suggest he was bringing contraband to or from his 

home.59 The court invalidated the search, finding that absent “additional factual 

information giving rise to a probability that evidence would be found in Cannon’s 

home, it was unreasonable for the issuing magistrate to accept the affidavit’s content 

as supporting the evidentiary nexus necessary for a search of [Cannon’s home].”60

In LeGrande, the probable cause affidavit was found to be insufficient 

because it did not contain any corroborating information to establish the reliability 

of the tipster’s assertion of illegality and police only corroborated the defendant’s 

identity, the location of his locked apartment, his probationary status, and that his 

neighbor was wanted.61 Thus, the affidavit “did not show that the tipster had 

57 Id.

58 Id., at *5 (citations omitted).

59 Id.

60 Id.

61 LeGrande, 947 A.2d at 1111.
17

knowledge of concealed criminal activity.”62 Because there was no corroboration 

by independent police investigation, the totality of the circumstances did not provide 

a substantial basis to conclude there was probable cause that evidence of a crime 

would be found in the apartment.63

In Valentine, the search warrant was found to be insufficient to support a 

finding of probable cause. The affidavit was conclusory, merely stating that the 

informant was past-proven reliable. The affidavit it did not identify the source of 

the informant’s information or how fresh or stale it was, nor did the affidavit provide 

self-validating details. Moreover, there were no other indicia of reliability as 

surveillance of Valentine (which included Valentine exchanging a duffle bag with 

another individual), Valentine’s prior criminal history (including his recent arrest for 

gun possession), and an altercation with a neighbor, did not corroborate the 

informant’s tips. Thus, the affidavit was insufficient to support the magistrate’s 

probable cause finding.64

VI. CONCLUSION

Where, as here, “the police are acting on the basis of an unidentified 

informant’s tip whose past performance as an informant and basis of knowledge of 

the subject matter of the current tip are not set forth in the affidavit and where the 

62 Id. (cleaned up and internal quotations omitted).

63 Id.

64 Valentine, 207 A.3d at 574-75.
18

tip is devoid of detail and not corroborated in any meaningful way, a conclusion that 

there was probable cause for a search warrant is not reasonable.”65 Clifton has 

carried her burden of proof and therefore, the Motion is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Kathleen M. Miller

Judge Kathleen M. Miller

65 Id. at 577.