Court Opinion

ID: 9947397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 19:02:55.68325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:26.560452
License: Public Domain

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                      )
                                        )
        v.                              )          I.D. No. 2306012215
                                        )
                                        )
DAWON BROWN,                            )
          Defendant.                    )

                         Date Submitted: February 13, 2024
                           Date Decided: March 1, 2024

                       Upon Defendant’s Motion to Suppress

        This 1st day of March, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant Dawon Brown’s

Motion to Suppress1, the State’s Response in Opposition and the record in this

matter, it appears to the Court that:

        1.     Defendant Dawon Brown (“Defendant”) was arrested on June 21, 2023,

following the execution of a search warrant at his home where guns and drugs were

discovered.2 Defendant was thereafter indicted on two (2) counts of Possession of a

Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, two (2) counts of Possession of a

Firearm by a Person Prohibited, one (1) count of Possession of Ammunition by a

Person Prohibited, two (2) counts of Drug Dealing, one (1) count of Tampering with

1
    State v. Dawon Brown, Crim. Act. No. 2304012215, D.I 7.
2
    D.I. 1.
Physical Evidence, one (1) count of Conspiracy Second Degree and two (2) counts

of Endangering the Welfare of a Child.3

      2.     Defendant filed the instant motion, moving to suppress the evidence

seized from his residence at 724 North Pine Street, Wilmington, Delaware, on June

21, 2023, by the Wilmington Police Department (hereinafter “WPD”).4 Defendant’s

motion argues the search warrant obtained for his residence by WPD fails to

establish probable cause in that: 1) it was based, in part, upon stale information; 2)

the Affidavit to the warrant (hereinafter “Affidavit”) is based upon hearsay and

unreliable information; and that 3) the warrant does not provide authority for WPD

to have seized weapons during their search.5

      3.     The State opposes this motion, arguing the Affidavit establishes

probable cause based upon proper, reliable information.6

      4.     A review of a magistrate’s finding of probable cause in issuing a search

warrant is limited to a “four corners” review.7 A magistrate may only issue a search

warrant upon a finding of probable cause; a magistrate’s determination is to be given

great deference by a reviewing court.8 The Affidavit supplied in support of the

3
  D.I. 3.
4
  D.I. 7.
5
  D.I. 7 & 13.
6
  D.I. 10.
7
  State v. Holden, 60 A.3d 1110, 1114 (Del. 2013).
8
  Id. (internal citations omitted).
warrant must be reviewed as a whole and evaluated for probable cause while looking

at the totality of the facts supplied. For instance, a tip from a confidential informant

may give rise to a finding of probable cause if the totality of the other facts provided

support such a finding.9 A reviewing court must be assured that the magistrate had

a substantial basis for their finding, and if such basis exists, the warrant should be

upheld.10 If a portion of the search warrant application is found to be improper, the

reviewing court may strike that portion and review the remaining facts for a probable

cause determination.11

      5.     The search warrant at issue here states, in the “Greetings” section, that

the magistrate was satisfied that:

      “there is probable cause to believe that certain property, namely 724
      North Pine Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801… is used or intended
      to be used for Title 16, Section 4754, Delaware Code [sic],
      Manufactures, delivers, or possession with intent to manufacture,
      deliver a controlled substance to wit: heroin/fentanyl and any drug
      related paraphernalia commonly used to process, package, and/or
      consume drugs are being concealed on (premises)(person) [sic]
      described in the annexed affidavit and application or
      complaint…[sic]”.12

      6.     The Affidavit and Application of the warrant states the Affiant has

reason to believe 724 North Pine Street contains “…heroin/fentanyl, paraphernalia,

9
  Id.
10
   Id.
11
   Thomas v. State, 305 A.3d 683, 703 (Del. 2023).
12
   Def. Mtn. to Suppress, Ex. A.
weapons and proceeds of heroin/fentanyl sales…”13 Further, the application seeks,

in paragraph 7 of the application page, “Any rifle, pistol, handgun or any device that

a short may be discharged or any weapon manifestly utilized to protect illegal

drugs.”14

       7.        The Affidavit goes on, in a new set of numerical paragraphs, to list the

probable cause in support of the warrant. The Affidavit details: “[d]uring the second

week of January 2023, the [Drug Organized Crime and Vice Division (hereinafter

“DOCV”)] unit received information from an anonymous source …who advised of

illegal drug sales originating from the inside of 724 North Pine Street, Wilmington,

DE. The source advised of a possible suspect named Brandy, identified as a black

female with braids. The source advised that there is a firearm inside the residence.”15

       8.        The Affidavit then states during the first week of May, 2023, the

“DOCV unit received a drug watch complaint from the WPD administration,

advising of drug sales conducted out of 724 North Pine Street from possible suspect,

Emanuel Turner [].” The Affidavit includes that in the second week of June, 2023,

“the DOCV unit received information, originating from a community contact, who

13
   Id.
14
   Id.
15
   Id. at ¶ 3.
advised that a third party informed of drug dealing that is occurring at all hours of

the day from renters located at 724 North Pine Street, Wilmington, Delaware.”16

         9.      The Affidavit then details the surveillance that the DOCV conducted

on this property during the third week of June, 2023. The surveillance revealed that

multiple subjects were seated on the front steps of this property conversing with one

another.       It was observed that a black male, “in his 30’s of age, of average height

and weight, with a black beard and light brown twisty style hair which was shoulder

length…wearing a black baseball cap and wearing a black fanny pack…over his

shoulder, and appeared to have the word ‘LEVIS’” written on it was observed

entering and leaving the house multiple times. This male was identified, “[t]hrough

investigative means” to be Defendant.17

         10.     At one point, Defendant was observed having just exited the residence,

and was approached by a subject “on foot and briefly engaged in a verbal

conversation…before [they walked] northbound together” and into an alleyway out

of WPD sight. Within 10-20 seconds of the two entering the alleyway, the subject

emerged first, followed by Defendant, who returned to 724 North Pine. The subject

was then stopped by WPD and was found to be in the possession of heroin. The

subject stated the heroin was just purchased from someone known as “Wani” and

16
     Id. at ¶ 4, 5.
17
     Id. at ¶ 6.
positively identified Defendant, via a single photograph provided by WPD.18 The

Affiant details how the activity observed by Defendant was “consistent with and

indicative of a street level drug deal[.]”19 Two zip lock bags containing a white

powdery substance, “consistent with heroin/fentanyl” was recovered from the

subject who was stopped.20

      11.    Finally, the Affiant states that the DOCV received a tip, in the third

week of June, 2023, from a past proven, confidential source, that a black male

subject, nicknamed “Wani” sells heroin on the 700 block of North Pine Street.21 The

Affiant also confirmed through a DELJIS inquiry, that Defendant lists 724 North

Pine Street, Wilmington, as his address. The confidential informant identified

Defendant as “Wani.”22

      12.    First and foremost, Defendant is correct that the information provided

in January, 2023, is stale and it will not be considered in the review of the four

corners of the warrant to determine if probable cause existed.23 While there is no

precise calculation for a set amount of time in which information becomes stale for

such an analysis, the determination is to be made given the facts of each particular

18
   Id. at ¶ 10.
19
   Id. at ¶ 9.
20
   Id.
21
   Id. at ¶ 13.
22
   Id. at ¶ 14.
23
   Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288 (Del. 2006); State v. Puglini, 374 A.2d 822 (Del.
1977).
case. In this case, the information was known to WPD approximately six (6) months

prior to the more recent tips before any confirmatory action was taken. Taken

together with the fact the information was provided by an anonymous source – with

no further details listed in the warrant – who provided information regarding a

seemingly unrelated female named “Brandy,” this information is not appropriate for

consideration in a probable cause analysis.24

      13.    That said, the remainder of the information provided in the warrant

establishes probable cause for the search of 724 North Pine Street. The Affidavit

details multiple information sources all telling WPD about drug sales occurring from

this location. To the extent that the reliability of the information sources can be

questioned, i.e. the “drug watch complaint” listed – with no further information

provided – and the “community contact” – again, with no further information

provided, the totality of the tips including the information provided with respect to

the past, proven reliable confidential informant lend credence to the reliability of the

information. While the less informative sources alone would be insufficient, looking

at the tips collectively and in conjunction with the observations of the officers was

well as the past, proven reliable informant, the magistrate had a substantial basis to

support a finding that probable cause exists to search 724 North Pine Street.25

24
   Puglini, 374 A.2d at 823.
25
   Holden, 60 A.3d at 1114; Morgan v. State, 962 A.2d 248 (Del. 2008); c.f. State
v. Spady, 2018 WL 4896335 (Del. Super. Oct. 8, 2018) (invalidating a controlled
      14.    Finally, Defendant contends the seizure of the firearms was invalid, as

the search warrant fails to give authority to such a search, based upon the “Greetings”

page only granting authority to search for “heroin/fentanyl and any drug related

paraphernalia commonly used to process, package, and/or consume drugs are being

concealed on (premises)(person)       [sic] described in the annexed affidavit and

application or complaint…[sic].”26

      15.    Defendant’s argument, while not misplaced, is unavailing. It is without

question that this warrant lacks attention to detail. However, the warrant mentions

the request to seize firearms throughout the Application and Affidavit, as listed

above. The failure to also include firearms on the “Greetings” page of the warrant

is akin to a “scrivener’s error.” It is clear from the intent of the warrant that weapons

were sought, and information was included in the Affidavit regarding the correlation

between drug dealing and the use of firearms.27 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume

buy for probable cause determination because the subject was out of view from the
officers in a multi-unit apartment building casting doubt on whether the drugs in
question were, in fact, purchased by Spady; which is distinguishable from the facts
in this case.).
26
   Def. Mtn. to Suppress, Ex. A.
27
   The Affidavit in paragraph 17, lists out commonly known activities of “Drug
Traffickers”, which includes the possession of firearms in items “F” and “I”. It is
not lost on the Court that the Affiant previously mentioned Defendant’s activities
were consistent with “street level drug sales” in paragraph 9, however, given the
standard of proof required to establish a nexus for a search, it is met here, albeit
with an admonition from the Court to be more mindful of the quality of the
Affidavit submitted.
the omission of detailing “firearms” from the Greetings page, while certainly not

ideal or condoned by the Court – does not invalidate the seizure.

      16.    Even if it would, Title 11, Section 1447A of the Delaware Code

prohibits possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony.            Notably,

Defendant was charged with two (2) counts under this statute.28 The weapons-

related offenses of which Defendant was charged globally stem from the location of

eight (8) rounds of ammunition located on the windowsill of the living room,29 a

loaded Ruger EC9S 9mm handgun in a holster on the Defendant’s nightstand,30 and

a loaded Springfield Armory XDM 9mm handgun located under a bed in an adjacent

bedroom.31 Under 11 Del C. §1447A, Defendant was charged with possession the

Ruger EC9S 9mm handgun located in his bedroom and the Springfield Armory

XDM 9mm handgun located in the adjacent bedroom, during the commission of a

felony in Counts I and II of the Indictment. Therefore, even if the seizure of the

firearms wasn’t legally authorized on the face of the warrant, these weapons may

have been lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine.

28
   D.I. 3, Counts I & II. It is not clear from the record whether the officers knew of
Defendant’s alleged prohibited status at the time of the seizure, therefore the
Court’s finding is limited to offenses under this section and not 11 Del. C. § 1448.
29
   State’s Resp. to Mtn. to Suppress, p. 4.
30
   Id. at p. 5.
31
   Id.
      17.    Based upon the record before the Court from the parties’ submissions,

it appears as if the plain view doctrine is satisfied in that: 1) the officers were

lawfully in the house pursuant to the search warrant; 2) the items evidentiary value

would have been immediately apparent given the very nature of the evidence at hand

– firearms; and 3) the officer had lawful right of access to the firearms.32 This

finding is qualified, however, because the full record has not been established insofar

the parties did not request an evidentiary hearing on this matter, given the four-

corner review, and this issue was raised in detail in the Defendant’s “Sur-Reply” to

his initial motion.33 Should the record in this case be further expanded to question

whether this doctrine has been met, Defendant is free to re-litigate this finding.

      THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress

is DENIED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                 _____________________________
                                                    Danielle J. Brennan, Judge

Cc:   Brett Fallon, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General
      Diane Coffey, Esquire, counsel for Defendant
      Original to Criminal Prothonotary

32
   Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 985-986 (Del. 2004) (citing Minnesota v.
Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1983).
33
   D.I. 13, 15.