Opinion ID: 2322259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the warrant to search jones's home

Text: Turning to the legality of the search of his home, Jones claims that the four corners of the affidavit in support of the search warrant do not establish probable cause. We agree. A search warrant is constitutionally deficient [45] if it does not 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. [46] We review a magistrate's probable cause determination with great deference. [47] Where the parties do not dispute the facts and only a constitutional claim of probable cause is presented, we review the Superior Court's application of the law of probable cause de novo. [48] We review the affidavit supporting the search warrant as a whole and not based on separate, discrete allegations. [49] The affidavit must set forth facts permitting an impartial judicial officer to reasonably conclude that the items sought would be found at the location. [50] The determination of whether the facts in the affidavit demonstrate probable cause requires a logical nexus between the items being sought and the place to be searched. [51] Here, the search warrant sought to find drugs, paraphernalia, and firearms at Jones's residence. The information in the affidavit falls into three categories: (1) the information relating to Jones's arrest on March 13, 2009; (2) the criminal history at 1003 Liberty Road relating to the other residents, Marcus Jones and Andre Hickson, in 2003 and 2007; and (3) the criminal history at 1003 Liberty Road relating to Jones. As discussed in Part II, supra, the police illegally seized Jones on March 13th and the subsequent fruits of that illegal seizure must be suppressed. As a result, the police could not use the illegally seized evidence in the affidavit to support their application for a search warrant. Delaware has not adopted the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule [52] and continues to require exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Delaware Constitution's protection against illegal searches and seizures. [53] Thus, we must exclude from the affidavit the tainted information relating to the March 13th arrest. Even so, tainted allegations in an affidavit do not vitiate a warrant which is otherwise validly issued upon probable cause reflected in the affidavit. [54] Rather, a reviewing court must excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue [the] warrant. [55] After excision of the tainted information in the affidavit, this Court has before it the last two categories of information in the affidavit detailing searches and arrests in 2003 and 2007. If the information in the affidavit for a search warrant is stale, it will not support a finding of probable cause. [56] The criminal history information in the affidavit regarding Marcus Jones and Andre Hickson related to incidents during 2003 and 2007 at 1003 Liberty Road. Importantly, the affidavit also stated that Andre Hickson has been incarcerated in federal prison since 2004 and Marcus Jones has been incarcerated since September 2007. The criminal history directly relating to Marcus Jones occurred during two searches in May 2003. During one of those searches, the police found a stolen firearm in a bedroom shared by Jones and Hickson. As a result of those searches, the State charged Jones with possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Probable cause must be manifest at the time the police seek the search warrant, not at some earlier point in time. [57] Here, all of the information relating to searches and arrests in 2003 was stale. Drugs and weapons charges dating back approximately six years before do not support a factual inference that the police will find contraband at Jones's residence in 2009. Likewise, the 2007 information was stale and could not support a reasonable inference that linked Marcellous Jones to any ongoing criminal conduct. Rather, the 2007 information directly related to Jones's brother, who because of the 2007 search, remained incarcerated. Given the affidavit facts that a magistrate could lawfully consider, under a totality of the circumstances review, it would be unreasonable to conclude that evidence of current criminal activity would be found at Jones's residence. Therefore, we hold that the search violated Jones's constitutional rights under Article I, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution and the evidence seized without probable cause should have been suppressed. Accordingly, the Superior Court erred by denying Jones's motion to suppress.