1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

)

v. )

) C.A. No. 1904007242

ELGIN WILSON, )

)

Defendant. )

Submitted: December 3, 2020

Decided: January 29, 2021

Upon Defendant Elgin Wilson’s Motions to Suppress: DENIED

The defendant, Elgin Wilson, is charged with first degree murder in 

connection with a shooting that occurred in downtown Wilmington. During the 

course of their investigation into the murder, police obtained surveillance footage 

that suggested the defendant was present near the scene at the time of the shooting 

and fled the area immediately afterward. Police also spoke to witnesses and were 

shown text messages that indicated the defendant was texting and calling witnesses 

immediately before and after the shooting. Police therefore sought and obtained 

warrants to search the defendant’s phone for data and digital information within six

enumerated categories, including text messages, call logs, and location information. 

The warrants temporally limited the search to the day before, the day of, and the day 

after the murder. 

The defendant argues the Court must suppress the evidence obtained from 

those warrants because the warrants were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. 
2

The pending motions to suppress require the Court to determine whether warrants 

that authorize police to search a specified phone for “data and digital information”

within six enumerated categories over a three-day time period lack the requisite 

particularity to satisfy the United States and Delaware constitutions. The motions 

to suppress are denied because I conclude (i) the challenged warrants were particular 

as to the time period of the search and the items to be searched and seized, and (ii) 

the scope of the authorized searches did not exceed the probable cause on which they 

were based.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On October 25, 2018, police responded to reports of shots fired in the 

999 block of Spruce Street. There, they found the victim lying in the street with 

multiple gunshot wounds. Medical personnel pronounced the victim dead at the 

scene. On October 30, 2018, Defendant Elgin Wilson was arrested on an unrelated 

drug charge. When Defendant was taken into custody, he possessed one gold and 

one silver iPhone; the police seized both phones.

2. On November 12, 2018, Detective Devon Jones applied for a search 

warrant on the gold phone (the “November 12th Warrant”). A Magistrate of the 

Justice of the Peace Court approved the application that same day. The November 

12th Warrant sought five categories of data: call logs, text messages, MMS, any

applications (“apps”) used to send and receive text messages, and subscriber 
3

information. Detective Jones simultaneously obtained a nearly identical warrant on 

the silver phone. On November 24, 2018, Detective Jones applied for a second 

search warrant on the gold phone (the “November 24th Warrant”). The November 

24th Warrant sought the same five categories of data as the November 12th Warrant 

but added a sixth category: GPS information and other location information. 

Specifically, the State sought to use the iPhone’s “location services” function to 

determine if Defendant (or at least his phone) was in the area of the shooting on 

October 25, 2018.1 Once again, a Magistrate approved the application on the same 

day. Both Warrants limited the authorized search to the three-day period between 

October 24, 2018 and October 26, 2018. 

3. Before obtaining the November 12th Warrant, the police developed 

Defendant as a suspect through video surveillance footage and witness statements. 

Video surveillance from local businesses showed that, minutes before the shooting,

a light-colored Buick Lucerne parked close to the block where the victim was 

murdered.

2

 Surveillance footage from a gas station approximately two hours earlier 

showed Defendant exiting the driver’s side of a silver Buick Lucerne, and the police 

later found a vehicle at Defendant’s address matching that description.3 

1 D.I. 28, Ex. A. (herein after cited as “Nov. 24th Aff.”), at ¶ 20.

2 D.I. 27, Ex. A. (hereinafter cited as “Nov. 12th Aff.”), at ¶ 6.

3

Id. at ¶ 13.
4

4. The police also gathered statements from three witnesses. One witness

(“Witness 1”) reported hearing Defendant saying he was going to get revenge for his 

brother’s murder.4 The victim in this case was the mother of the man who pleaded 

guilty to killing Defendant’s brother.5 The witness also viewed surveillance footage 

that showed a person believed to be the gunman walking south on Spruce Street 

shortly before the shooting and later running away in the opposite direction.6 

Witness 1 identified the suspect as Defendant.7 A second witness (“Witness 2”)

reported seeing a person with a mask over his face walking in the area shortly before 

the shooting.8 That witness then heard several gunshots and saw the same person 

flee towards where the Buick Lucerne was parked.9 Witness 2 insisted Defendant 

was not in the area at the time of the shooting and consented to a search of their cell 

phone.

10 In Witness 2’s cell phone, the police found text messages and voicemails

from Defendant stating he left the area earlier that evening.

11

 Defendant also called 

the witness immediately following the shooting, asking what happened and

declaring that he was at home at the time.

12

 A third witness (“Witness 3”) was 

4

Id. at ¶ 7.

5

Id. at ¶¶ 7, 10.

6

Id. at ¶ 6.

7

Id. at ¶ 8.

8

Id. at ¶ 9.

9

Id.

10 Id. at ¶¶ 10, 11.

11 Id. at ¶ 11

12 Id. at ¶ 12.
5

present during this phone call and heard Defendant say he was home at the time of 

the shooting.13

5. On April 15, 2019, a grand jury indicted Defendant on charges of 

Murder First Degree, Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a Felony, 

and Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited. On June 2, 2020, Defendant 

filed two Motions to Suppress challenging the constitutionality of the November 12th

and November 24th Warrants for the gold iPhone.

14

 The State filed an omnibus 

opposition, and the Court held oral argument. During argument, the parties 

requested an opportunity to submit supplemental briefing. On November 6, 2020, 

Defendant filed a supplemental letter regarding the location information sought by

the November 24th Warrant, and on December 3, 2020, the State filed its 

supplemental response on that issue.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

6. Defendant argues the Warrants15 did not establish a sufficient nexus 

between the murder and the phone because the State’s allegations are based on 

13 Id.

14 Defendant also filed a third motion to suppress evidence retrieved from the silver phone. The 

State, however, did not find anything responsive on the silver phone, and that motion therefore is 

moot. See D.I. 29, 36.

15 Defendant’s two Motions contain language and arguments that virtually are identical. Unless 

otherwise specified, the November 12th Warrant and the November 24th Warrant will be referred 

to collectively as “the Warrants.”
6

generalized suspicion and speculation.

16

 Specifically, Defendant takes issue with

the Warrants’ assertion that “it is common for individuals to use their cellular devices 

to take pictures/videos of themselves with friends and associates.” Defendant 

contends this statement is too general to establish a nexus between his phone and the 

murder investigation.17 Defendant also asserts the Warrants were unconstitutionally 

broad because they sought “data and digital information,” without stating the 

specific types of data and digital information the State believed were pertinent to the 

investigation. According to Defendant, this broad language covered “in essence 

everything on the phone” during the relevant time period and authorized an 

unconstitutional top-to-bottom search of the phone.

18

 With respect to the November 

24th Warrant, Defendant further argues the term “location information” lacked

particularity as to how the information was created within the phone.

19

 Defendant 

asserts the location services function of an iPhone accesses numerous applications 

(“apps”), thereby effectively permitting the State to gather digital information from 

an unlimited number of apps.

20 Accordingly, Defendant contends the November 

16 Def. Mot. 1, D.I. 27, at 8-9 (Nov. 12th Warrant); see also Def. Mot. 2, D.I. 28, at 8-9 (Nov. 24th

Warrant).

17 Def. Mot. 1, at 9; see also Def. Mot. 2 at 9.

18 Def.’s Mot. 1, at 9-10; see also Def.’s Mot. 2, at 9-10.

19 Def.’s Supp. Letter, D.I. 43, at 2.

20 Id.
7

24th Warrant was overly broad and failed to specify with particularity what evidence 

the State was seeking within the phone.21

7. The State maintains the averments in the affidavit of probable cause 

supporting the November 12th Warrant sufficiently establish a nexus between the 

murder and Defendant’s phone because the November 12th Warrant outlines specific 

facts linking Defendant and his phone to the victim’s murder.22 The State points to

several witness statements that it contends support the inference that Defendant used 

his phone to communicate his whereabouts and form an alibi on the night of the 

murder.23 The State asserts the November 12th Warrant also sufficiently was

particular because it sought five specified categories of data.24 The State contends 

that, contrary to Defendant’s allegations, the November 12th Warrant did not contain 

language that would authorize an impermissible top-to-bottom search of 

Defendant’s phone.

25

8. The State argues the November 24th Warrant nearly was identical to the 

November 12th Warrant, except that the November 24th Warrant added “location 

information” as a category of data to be searched.

26

 The State reasons the November 

24th Warrant adequately established a nexus between Defendant, the crime, and the 

21 Id. at 3.

22 State’s Resp., D.I. 36, at 8, 10.

23 Id. at 10-13.

24 Id. at 16.

25 Id. at 15.

26 Id. at 19.
8

evidence sought by (i) detailing witness statements and surveillance video that 

pieced together Defendant’s suspected travel path around the time of the murder,

and (ii) explaining how Defendant’s location could be ascertained by reviewing the 

location services function on his phone.27 As to particularity, the State maintains 

that the November 24th Warrant contained substantially the same language as the 

November 12th Warrant and similarly lacked language authorizing a top-to-bottom 

search of the phone.

28

 The State asserts that the November 24th Warrant specifically 

sought access to the iPhone’s “location services” function. The State contends that

function can be accessed without reviewing other apps, contrary to Defendant’s 

assertion that the search allowed the State access an unlimited number of apps.29

DISCUSSION

9. The United States Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he 

right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against 

unreasonable searches and seizures[.]”30 A defendant who challenges the validity of 

a search warrant bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence 

27 Id. at 19-21.

28 Id. at 22.

29 State’s Supp. Letter, D.I. 48, at 2.

30 U.S. Cost. Amend. IV. Similarly, Article I, § 6 of the Delaware Constitution provides: “The 

people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable 

searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall 

issue without describing them as particularly as may be; nor then, unless there be probable cause 

supported by oath or affirmation.”
9

that the search violated his Constitutional rights.31 A search warrant only may be 

issued upon a showing of probable cause, which is determined based on a totality of 

the circumstances.32 A warrant is valid if its supporting affidavit contains facts 

adequate for a judicial officer to form a reasonable belief that the items to be seized 

will be found in a particular place. In other words, there must be a “logical nexus 

between the items being sought and the place to be searched.”33 Additionally, the 

warrant must describe with sufficient particularity the things to be searched and the 

persons or items to be seized.34 The warrant must be no broader than the probable 

cause on which it is based.35 

A. The Warrants were supported by probable cause.

36

10. In assessing probable cause, a reviewing court considers only the 

information contained in the application’s four corners and gives great deference to 

the magistrate’s initial finding that there was probable cause to issue the warrant.37 

31 State v. Jones, 2016 WL 10998979, at *3 (Del. Super. June 2, 2016) (citing State v. Holton, 

2011 WL 4638781, at *2 (Del. Super. Sept. 22, 2011)).

32 Fink v. State, 817 A.2d 781, 786-87 (Del. 2003); U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Del. Const. art. 1, § 

6.

33 State v. Reese, 2019 WL 1277390, at *2 (Del. Super. March 18, 2019) (quoting State v. 

Westcott, 2017 WL 283390, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 23, 2017)).

34 U.S. v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 97 (2006).

35 Wheeler v. State, 135 A.3d 282, 299 (Del. 2016) (citing United States v. Zimmerman, 277 F.3d 

426, 432 (3d Cir.2002)).

36 Defendant challenged probable cause in his Motions but effectively conceded the issue at oral 

argument. Because it is relevant to the particularity analysis, however, the Court nonetheless will 

address the issue of probable cause. Defendant confirmed the mootness of the third motion

(relating to the silver iPhone) at oral argument.

37 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983).
10

Generalized suspicions, however, do not form a substantial basis for finding 

probable cause.38 The Supreme Court has found unpersuasive general statements to 

the effect that “criminals often communicate through cell phones.”

39

11. Here, the affidavits of probable cause supporting the Warrants 

established a nexus between Defendant, the alleged crime, and Defendant’s cell 

phone. The affidavits contain statements by several witnesses linking Defendant

and his phone to the shooting and indicating Defendant was using his phone around 

the time of the shooting. 

12. First, the affidavit contained specific facts supporting the Magistrate’s 

determination that there was probable cause to believe Defendant committed the 

crime. Witness 1 told the police that Defendant was in the area near the crime and 

Defendant stated he was “going to get revenge for his brother’s murder.”40 During 

the homicide investigation, the police also obtained video surveillance that allowed 

them to piece together the suspect’s path to and from the scene of the shooting. The 

video surveillance showed a light-colored Buick Lucerne driving northbound and

ultimately parking on 10th and Church Streets.

41 Defendant was linked to a vehicle 

of the same make and color and was seen driving that vehicle on the day of the

38 State v. Johnson, 2019 WL 6903997, at *7 (Del. Super. Dec. 18, 2019).

39 Id.

40 Nov. 12th Aff. at ¶ 7.

41 Id. at ¶ 6.
11

shooting.42 Witness 2 reported seeing the suspected gunman wearing a mask and 

walking from Church Street onto 10th Street and then down an alleyway.43 Moments 

later, Witness 2 reported hearing gunshots coming from the alleyway and seeing the 

suspect fleeing back down 10th Street toward Church Street.

44

 When the police 

showed the surveillance footage to Witness 1, the witness said with absolute 

certainty that the suspect in the video was Defendant.45 

13. Second, the affidavits supported the Magistrate’s determination that 

there was a nexus between the murder and Defendant’s iPhone. The affidavits

averred that Witness 2 texted Defendant throughout the day of the murder.46 With 

consent, Detective Jones searched Witness 2’s cell phone and reviewed the text 

messages from the day of the crime. The messages included Defendant texting 

Witness 2 at approximately 3 am and placing several calls to Witness 2 within ten 

minutes after the murder.

47

 Witness 3 was with Witness 2 near the crime scene when 

Defendant called and asked what happened.48 According to Witness 3, Defendant 

told Witness 2 he was home at the time of the shooting.49 The State alleges this

statement was Defendant’s attempt to create an alibi. Witness 3 also identified 

42 Id. at ¶ 13.

43 Id. at ¶ 9.

44 Id.

45 Id. at ¶ 8.

46 Id. at ¶ 11.

47 Id.

48 Id. at ¶ 12.

49 Id.
12

Defendant when shown a six-photograph lineup by the police.50 Based on these 

witness statements and the evidence on Witness 2’s phone, the reviewing Magistrate 

reasonably could infer that the evidence the police sought could be found on 

Defendant’s phone.

14. With regards to the location information sought in the November 24th

Warrant, the police averred that the cell phone’s location services function may have 

collected data from Defendant’s communications and could pin down Defendant’s 

movements around the time of the shooting.

51 The affidavit supporting the 

November 24th Warrant set out locations where Defendant may have been that 

evening, the existence of video surveillance, and communications made from his

phone during the time of the shooting, including Defendant’s statements shortly after 

the shooting regarding where he had been when the crime occurred. These 

allegations did more than “a minimal amount of work” and went beyond the vague, 

general statements previously ruled insufficient.

52

 A magistrate presented with the 

affidavit reasonably could have found a basis to believe that data reflecting

Defendant’s location during the shooting would be on the phone. Accordingly, the 

Warrants were supported by probable cause.

50 Id.

51 Nov. 24th Aff. at ¶ 21.

52 Buckham v. State, 185 A.3d 1, 17 (Del. 2018).
13

B. The Warrants were sufficiently particular and were not constitutionally 

overbroad.

15. Even when a warrant is supported by probable cause, it also must be 

sufficiently particular and narrow in scope to satisfy the Fourth Amendment.

53

 

These additional requirements ensure that searches are as limited as possible and

help guard against the authorities engaging in an “exploratory rummaging in a 

person’s belongings.”54 To meet this standard, a warrant must describe the items to 

be searched with sufficient particularity and must be no broader than the probable 

cause on which the warrant is based.55 “Warrants directed to digital information 

present unique challenges in satisfying the particularity requirement, given the 

unprecedented volume of private information stored on devices containing such 

data.”

56

 Accordingly, a warrant must describe with as much specificity as possible 

what the investigating officers believe will be found during the digital search.

57

i. The November 12th Warrant

16. Defendant argues the November 12th Warrant was insufficiently 

particular and unconstitutionally overbroad, contending it was similar to the warrant

rejected by the Delaware Supreme Court in Buckham v. State.

58

 But the November 

53 Wheeler v. State, 135 A.3d 282, 298-99 (Del. 2016).

54 Id. at 298.

55 Id. at 299.

56 Id.

57 Id. at 304.

58 185 A.3d 1 (Del. 2018).
14

12th Warrant and the Buckham warrant differ in key respects. In Buckham, the State 

sought a variety of data from the cell phone that was found in Buckham’s possession 

when he was arrested several weeks after the crime.

59

 The warrant did not limit the 

search to any relevant time frame and used the broad term “including but not limited 

to” when describing the categories of data sought.60 The Delaware Supreme Court 

ruled that the broad language and lack of temporal limitation made the warrant

improperly vague and broader than the probable cause on which it arguably was 

based.

61

 Importantly, in Buckham, the only possible nexus between the phone and 

the crime was the possibility the phone would reveal GPS location data regarding 

Buckham’s whereabouts during and after the crime.62 Even that inference, however,

was a stretch because the affidavit did not contain any specific facts indicating 

Buckham had his phone in his possession at the time of the crime.63 Given the nexus 

issue, the broad search authorized in Buckham could not satisfy the constitutional 

requirements for particularity and breadth.

17. Similarly, in Wheeler v. State,

64 another case on which Defendant 

relies, the police obtained warrants to search Wheeler’s entire digital portfolio found 

59 Id. at 15.

60 Id.

61 Id. at 19.

62 Id. at 4, 19.

63 Id. at 17.

64 135 A.3d 282 (Del. 2016).
15

on personal computers, cell phones, digital cameras, and video cameras.

65

 The 

search also was not limited to any relevant time frame and permitted searches for 

data far beyond the written communications police were seeking to support their 

investigation into witness tampering.

66

 The Delaware Supreme Court ruled the 

warrants permitted broad, exploratory searches and therefore failed the particularity 

requirement.67

18. Unlike the Buckham and Wheeler warrants, the November 12th Warrant 

did not seek any and all data or digital information; instead, it sought only five 

enumerated categories of digital information. The November 12th Warrant did not 

contain language that would suggest an impermissibly broad scope such as “any and 

all” or “including but not limited to.” The categories limited the search to call logs,

subscriber information, and various forms of messaging. The November 12th

Warrant described what the officers believed would be found on the phone with 

specificity68 and thereby satisfied an important metric in judging particularity.69 

Further, the November 12th Warrant was limited to a three-day period around the 

65 Id. at 289.

66 Id. at 304-05, 307. 

67 Id. at 307.

68 See Nov. 12th Aff. at ¶¶ 17-18 (seeking call history, text messages, social media messages, 

photographs, and videos).

69 See Wheeler, 135 A.3d at 304 (“The guiding metric applied by the court [is] that ‘officers must 

describe what they believe will be found . . . with as much specificity as possible under the 

circumstances[,]’ and that ‘[t]his will enable the searcher to narrow his or her search to only the 

items to be seized.’”) (quoting State v. Castagnola, 46 N.E.3d 638, 659 (Ohio 2015)).
16

shooting, unlike the warrants in Wheeler and Buckham that lacked any temporal 

limitations. The affidavit supporting the November 12th Warrant contained 

probable cause to believe this particular evidence would be found in the phone. 

Accordingly, the November 12th Warrant described the items to be searched with 

sufficient particularity, and the scope of the search did not exceed the probable cause 

on which it was based.

ii. The November 24th Warrant

19. The November 24th Warrant differed from the November 12th Warrant 

in only a few respects. First, in addition to the five categories of information 

previously authorized, the Warrant sought location data as a sixth category. Second, 

the Warrant added two paragraphs providing background on the November 12th

Warrant and some of the evidence obtained through that search.

70

 Third, the 

November 24th Warrant added two paragraphs defining the term “location 

information” and identifying precisely what evidence police were seeking. 

Specifically, the affidavit stated:

Your affiant can truly state that Apple I-Phones have “location 

services” on the cell phone that is used to track the users [sic] 

movements and determine your approximate location. Location 

services allow apps and websites (including Maps, Camera, Weather, 

and other apps) to use information from cellular, WiFi, Global 

Positioning System (GPS) networks . . . . “Location services” on the 

cell phone will show areas that are frequent destinations of the user . . . 

. By viewing the “location services,” this investigator will be able to 

70 See Nov. 24th Aff. at ¶¶ 18-19.
17

see if [Defendant] and the cell phone were in the area of the murder on 

October 25, 2018.71

20. As to the first five categories in the warrant, the Court already has 

concluded the particularity standard was met. The November 24th Warrant neither

deleted nor altered any of the categories of information previously sought by the 

November 12th Warrant. Defendant, however, argues the November 24th Warrant 

only sought location data and therefore the inclusion of the other five categories 

impermissibly broadened the scope of the warrant beyond that for which there was 

probable cause to search. This argument falters because, as explained above, the 

Warrant was supported by sufficient probable cause to search for the five previous 

categories. The inclusion of previously authorized categories did not somehow taint 

the request for location information.72

21. Defendant further asserts the location information request lacked

particularity because there are an unlimited number of applications (“apps”) on a 

cell phone from which location data can be gathered. Defendant argues the term 

71 Id. at ¶ 20.

72 Even if, hypothetically, the November 24th Warrant was unconstitutional, evidence obtained 

under the first five categories would survive under the independent source doctrine. Under this 

doctrine, evidence obtained without authorization does not become inaccessible if the evidence 

also was gained from an independent source. Johnson, 2019 WL 6903997, at *8. Accordingly, 

facts obtained through an invalid warrant need not be suppressed if they also are obtained 

through a lawful warrant that did not rely on anything obtained in the tainted warrant. Id. As 

discussed above, the November 12th Warrant was supported by probable cause, was sufficiently 

particular, and was not overbroad. Accordingly, any facts obtained through the November 12th

Warrant (i.e., the five categories of information) need not be suppressed even if the November 

24th Warrant was unconstitutional.
18

“location information” is so broad that it would allow the sort of top-to-bottom 

search that courts prohibit.73 Defendant is incorrect, however, because the 

November 24th Warrant limited the meaning of “location information” solely to data 

that would use the phone’s location services function to identify the location of the 

cell phone at the time a given communication was made.74 Additionally, the request

for location information had the same limitation in scope as the other five categories. 

The authorization to search for location information was limited to the same threeday period, and the term is not nearly as inclusive as phrases such as “any and all” 

or “including but not limited to,” which typically run afoul of constitutional 

requirements regarding particularity and breadth. The fact that location services data 

is compiled when a user accesses various apps does not render the warrant overbroad 

or insufficiently particular. The warrant described with as much specificity as 

possible what the police believed would be found on the phone.75 Accordingly, the 

November 24th Warrant was constitutional.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Elgin Wilson’s Motions to Suppress are

DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

73 See, e.g., Buckham, 185 A.3d at 18.

74 Nov. 24th Warrant at ¶ 20

75 See Wheeler, 135 A.3d at 304 (“A key principle distilled from the jurisprudence in this area is 

that warrants, in order to satisfy the particularity requirement, must describe what investigating 

officers believe will be found on electronic devices with as much specificity as possible under 

the circumstances.”).
19

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Cynthia Hurlock, Deputy Attorney General

Martin O’Connor, Deputy Attorney General

Brian J. Chapman, Esquire