Court Opinion

ID: 9385315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 16:02:56.810897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:01.307465
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                  )
                                    )
                                    )
        v.                          )       Case No. 2207004139
                                    )
JAQUAN MASON,                       )
                                    )
             Defendant.             )

                                  OPINION

                           Submitted: March 29, 2023
                             Decided: April 6, 2023

                      On Defendant’s Motion to Suppress
                                  GRANTED

Dominic A. Carrera, Jr., Esquire, Deputy Attorney General
     Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware
     Attorney for the State of Delaware

Thomas A. Foley, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware
    Attorney for Defendant

                                        1
      Defendant has moved to suppress evidence seized from his residence on July

8, 2022, as well as any statements made following entry into the residence by the

State Police.

                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL CONTEXT
      Defendant Jaquan Mason is charged with four counts of Robbery First

Degree, four counts of Wearing a Disguise During the Commission of a Felony, two

counts of Conspiracy Second Degree, Tampering With Physical Evidence and

Robbery Second Degree. The allegations involve four sets of robberies: May 1,

2022 (Royal Farms at 295 and Route 9); June 7, 2022 (PNC Bank Penn Mart

Shopping Center); June 19, 2022 (Royal Farms at 295 and Route 9); and June 20,

2022 (Walgreens, Four Seasons Glasgow).

      On July 6th, the State Police obtained warrant in the Justice of the Peace Court

2 to search a residence located at 180 Bunche Blvd, Wilmington, DE 19801, for

evidence related to the June 7th PNC Bank robbery. The search warrant was executed

on July 8th. Inside the residence, the State Police found what they believed was

evidence from other robberies. The State Police obtained a second search warrant in

the Justice of the Peace Court 11 on July 8th, before continuing the search.

      Paragraph 11 of the July 6th search warrant states:

                On June 21st, 2022 a search warrant was executed at the
                residence belonging to D2 Jinita Wright. During the execution
                of the search warrant two cellular devices belonging to D2
                Wright were located and collected as evidence. Wright was
                                          2
             taken into custody without incident and transported to Delaware
             State Police Troop 6. A post-Miranda interview was conducted
             at which time D2 Wright implicated herself as the suspect vehicle
             owner and operator, as well as the individual responsible for
             hand-writing the demand note, removing the discarded firearm
             from the trash can and transporting the main bank robbery
             suspect to and from the scene of the crime. D2 Wright advised
             that she contacted her co-conspirator S1 Jaquan Mason,
             utilizing those cellular devices, prior to the robbery. D2 advised
             that she picked up S1 Jaquan Mason and his mother from their
             residence at 180 Bunche Blvd, Wilmington DE 1980. D2 Wright
             utilized Google Maps while your Affiant was present to locate
             and identify the correct residence. D2 Wright was able to
             describe the residence where S1 Mason resided because she had
             picked him up from that location on multiple occasions. An
             investigative inquiry was performed linking S1 Jaquan Mason
             and his mother Cynthia Mason to 180 Bunche Blvd as recently
             as 6/18/2022 (Cynthia Mason listed as homeowner in police
             report 32-22-45770) and 3/16/2022 (Jaquan Mason listed as
             resident in police report 32-22-19513). Traditional surveillance
             was established at this location however due to the location of
             the residence no occupants were able to be observed.

                           STANDARD OF REVIEW

      Probable cause to obtain a search warrant is based on the totality of the

circumstances. These circumstances must be set forth in the four corners of the

affidavit supporting the warrant. The reviewing judicial officer must determine

whether there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in a

particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983). Probable cause that

a crime has been committed is not sufficient. The affidavit must state facts

                                          3
supporting a reasonable belief that the property sought will be found in a particular

place. Taylor v. State, 260 A.3d 602, 613 (Del. 2021).

      An informant’s tip can provide the basis for reasonable suspicion or probable

cause. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329 (1990). The reviewing court must

consider the credibility of the tip. The less credible the informant, the more

corroboration is required to determine reliability. See Miller v. State, 25 A.3d 768,

721-22 (Del. 2011). Recent Delaware cases have emphasized the need for

verification and corroboration of the asserted connection to the Defendant and/or

property to be searched. See State v. Stevens, 2023 WL 2127335, at *1-4 (Del.

Super.)(motion to suppress denied where information from two confidential

informants corroborated by observations of police officers of defendant’s vehicle

and controlled drug buy from defendant’s motel room); State v. Spady, 2018 WL

4896335, at *3-4 (Del. Super.) (motion to suppress granted where police failed to

verify informant’s participation in controlled drug buy in a building containing five

separate units).

                                    ANALYSIS

      In this case, the informant was an accomplice. An accomplice confession

that also incriminates a co-defendant “ought to be received with suspicion, and

with the very greatest care and caution….” Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 131

(1999).

                                         4
      The State argues that the affidavit sufficiently provides the following

corroboration:

Corroboration of Criminal Activity

       1.     Ms. Wright’s vehicle arriving to and leaving from the bank prior to and
shortly after the robbery determined by surveillance.

     2.    Social media posts from Ms. Wright’s account linking her to the
Robbery Vehicle close in time to the robbery.

       3.    Surveillance that captured Ms. Wright driving to and from the robbery
and collecting an unknown item from the trashcan that the Defendant discarded an
item in directly after the robbery.

     4.     The fingerprint on the robbery demand note belonging to Ms. Wright
showing her involvement with Defendant in the robbery.

     5.     Surveillance shows Defendant throw an item out in the trash can
immediately after the Robbery and Ms. Wright collects the item shortly thereafter.

      6.     Surveillance shows the items appearing consistent with a firearm.

      7.     Ms. Wright’s statement admitting to her involvement in the robbery
confirming that she is the female on surveillance driving the car, retrieving an item
from the trash can.

       8.    Ms. Wright’s statement that Defendant was the other suspect seen
entering the bank and handing over the demand note.

      9.     Ms. Wright’s statement that the item she retrieved from the trashcan
was in fact a firearm that had been placed there by Defendant.

      10. Ms. Wright’s statement that she utilized her cell phone to communicate
with Defendant leading up to the Robbery.

      11. Ms. Wright’s statement that she transported Defendant to and from the
robbery scene after she collected the firearm.
                                         5
       12. That the firearm used in the robbery was not located in Ms. Wright’s
residence at the time a search warrant was executed but that police did locate two
cell phones.

Corroboration of the Defendant’s Residence

      1.     Police conducted extensive surveillance on Ms. Wright prior to her
apprehension and determined there to be no male co-conspirator living with her or
within her household.

       2.   Ms. Wright confirmed with police that she picked the Defendant and
his mother up from his residence prior to transporting Defendant to the Robbery
scene.

      3.    Ms. Wright stated that she had picked up the Defendant from his
residence on numerous prior [occasions].

      4.     Ms. Wright Was able to accurately describe what Defendant’s
residence looked like.

       5.    Police confirmed that recently Defendant and his mom resided at that
residence based on served police complaints linking Defendant and his mother to
that residence.

       6.    Finally, police attempted to further corroborate the residence by
establishing traditional surveillance but were unsuccessful.

      7.     That the firearm used in the robbery that police were requesting a search
for was not located in Ms. Wright’s residence at the time a search warrant.

      The Court notes that this list refers to “Defendant” on surveillance. However,

Defendant is not identifiable on the films. Additionally, Paragraph 2 in the

Application and Affidavit describes “a dark-skinned black male, 5’6” to 5’6 1/2”, in

his   mid-twenties   wearing    a   navy-blue    bucket    hat   and   gray   hooded

                                          6
sweatshirt.” However, nothing in the Affidavit states that Defendant matches that

description. The sole connection between the information in the Affidavit and the

Defendant is the accomplice statement that Defendant is the person referred to

as “S1.” The vehicle was the property of the accomplice. The place to be searched

was the home of Defendant, not the accomplice.

      The credibility of the accomplice is questionable. Throughout her post-arrest

interview, her story about the events changed - from denial of all culpability to

admission of some participation in the crime. The accomplice denied key aspects of

her   involvement   that   contradict    surveillance   footage   -   such   as   the

accomplice retrieving a firearm from the dumpster in which it was placed

immediately following the robbery. However, her identification of Defendant as a

co-conspirator did not waver.

      The Court finds that the Application and Affidavit fail to provide probable

cause supporting issuance of the search warrant. The co-conspirator’s statement that

her accomplice was Defendant is uncorroborated.

      THEREFORE, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is hereby GRANTED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.
                                             /s/ Mary M. Johnston
                                        The Honorable Mary M. Johnston

                                          7