 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ivins5/21/2004
[FN40] In Reinholz, the police searched the defendant's trash and discovered 20 syringes with methamphetamine residue, a brass pipe with cocaine residue, and documents addressed to the defendants. [FN41] The amount of drug paraphernalia discovered in the trash indicates a significant amount of drug activity. [FN42] Furthermore, the police learned that one of the defendants had been convicted of drug charges in the past. [FN43]
FN40. Id.
FN41. Id. at 777.
FN42. Id.
FN43. Id.
In this regard, the inclusion of the discovery of such "drug paraphernalia," without further identification of the actual objects seized, lends no support to the magistrate's finding of probable cause. When applying the totality of the circumstances analysis, the information provided in the Warrant application is insufficient to establish probable cause necessary to issue a search warrant. A reasonable person would not find a connection between the objects to be seized and Ivins' residence. Further investigation and/or corroborating evidence is necessary for probable cause to exist to search Ivins' residence.
*9 In the case at bar, there were several confidential informants who provided similar accounts of the defendant's alleged unlawful activities. However, none of the informants were shown to be "past proven reliable" and none of the statements given were probative of any unlawful activity. Any citizen could have described the cars driven by Ivins, his residence, or that he does not sustain employment. The DSP could have taken steps to see if Ivins worked, but failed to do so. Although Ivins was arrested in the past for drug violations, those arrests were in 1977 and 1982 and there was no mention of any drug convictions. More recently, Ivins was found in possession of narcotics while stopped for a possible DUI violation in North Carolina and narcotics were found during a search of Ivins' North Carolina home. However, the quantity of narcotics found on Ivins was insufficient to suggest that he is engaged in the sale of drugs in Delaware. Moreover, the "drug paraphernalia" found in Ivins' trash, without further identification, provides no support for the existence of probable cause.
Therefore, the information provided in the affidavit is insufficient to encroach upon Ivins' constitutional right against an unreasonable search of his residence. There is no connection between the items sought to be found and the place to be searched. Without further evidence through police investigation, it was unreasonable for the magistrate to accept the information provided in the Warrant application as probable cause to issue a search warrant. The Court recognizes the deference owed to a magistrate by a reviewing court. Nevertheless, when viewing the information in light of the totality of the circumstances, the information contained in the Warrant application is insufficient to support the magistrate's finding of probable cause.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Ivins' Motion to Suppress is granted.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|