Title: Bradley v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 215, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 19, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES F. BRADLEY,  
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)   No. 215, 2003 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
)  Cr. ID No.  0208006458 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  March 23, 2004 
Decided:  August 19, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th  day of August 2004, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, it 
appears to this Court that: 
 
1. 
On August 10, 2002, the Millsboro Police stopped James F. Bradley at 
a DUI Checkpoint on Route 24 and charged him with Driving Under the Influence 
of Alcohol.  At trial, Bradley moved to suppress evidence gathered during the stop 
on the grounds that the Millsboro Police set up the check point by use of a protocol 
that violated Bradley’s Fourth Amendment rights.  The trial judge denied the 
motion, admitted the evidence, and a Superior Court jury convicted Bradley. 
 
2. 
Bradley appeals the trial judge’s ruling that the Millsboro Police’s 
protocol complied with United States and Delaware Constitutional standards and 
 
2
Delaware law.  Bradley insists that the Millsboro Police DUI checkpoint operation 
failed to demonstrate sufficient compliance with the standard operating procedures 
for motorist checkpoints required by the Office of Highway Safety (OHS).  This 
failure, Bradley claims, violated rights guaranteed him by the Fourth Amendment 
to the United States Constitution and Article I §6 of the Delaware Constitution to 
be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Bradley’s argument appears to 
be that a failure to comply with OHS’s SOP for checkpoints results in a 
deprivation of an individual’s constitutional rights. 
 
3. 
The trial judge denied Bradley’s motion, ruling that the DUI 
checkpoint satisfied constitutional requirements.  The trial judge found that the 
procedures required by OHS were properly implemented, that all the cars passing 
through the DUI checkpoint were stopped in a reasonably safe manner, and that 
sufficient safeguards were in place to check the Millsboro Police’s discretion in 
locating the site of the DUI checkpoint and stopping the vehicles.  
4. 
We review de novo claims that the trial judge erred in formulating law 
or applying the proper legal standard in deciding a motion to suppress evidence.1    
5. 
After fully reviewing the record, we find little merit in Bradley’s 
argument that the Millsboro Police failed to comply sufficiently with the exacting 
                                                 
1 Caldwell v. State, 780 A.2d 1037,1045 (Del. 2001). 
 
3
procedural standards of the Office of Highway Safety.  In State v. McDermott,2 a 
motion to suppress evidence gathered at a checkpoint was granted because the 
State failed to demonstrate both careful compliance and substantial compliance 
with OHS checkpoint policy and procedures.  Here, the record demonstrates that 
the Millsboro Police carefully complied with substantially all of the OHS 
procedures in setting up and operating their checkpoint.  Most importantly, the 
Millsboro Police were careful to comply with OHS guidelines that limit an 
officer’s discretion to set the location of the checkpoint, or to stop particular 
vehicles during the checkpoint.  Further, it is evident that the admittedly minor 
deficiencies in compliance with the OHS checkpoint procedures by the Millsboro 
Police did not affect Bradley’s constitutional rights.  The stop about which he 
complains, given the safeguards employed from the protocol, represented only a 
minimal intrusion on Bradley’s constitution right to be free from unreasonable 
searches and seizures.   
 
6. 
Finally, we review for plain error Bradley’s claim that no proper 
foundation was introduced at trial to demonstrate that the OHS procedures were 
promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.3  Bradley, 
however, fails to cite which, if any, provisions of the APA would govern the OHS 
                                                 
2 1999 WL 1847364 (Del. Com. Pl.). 
3 29 Del. C. ch. 101.  This argument is raised for the first time in Bradley’s Opening Brief. 
 
4
procedures.  Given the lack of substance to the argument, we conclude no plain 
error occurred here. 
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Superior Court is hereby 
Affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice