source doctrine in Delaware

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2026These social costs include “letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free” and the “toll upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives.” Id. 61 United States v. Beck, 2023 WL 5016614 , at *3 (11th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) (citing Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988); Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 814 (1984)). 11 government should not profit from illegal activity,”62 the policy behind the independent source doctrine is that the State “should not be put in a worse position ‘simply because of some earlier police error or misconduct.’”63 Thus, “the exclusionary rule

2026These social costs include “letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free” and the “toll upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives.” Id. 61 United States v. Beck, 2023 WL 5016614 , at *3 (11th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) (citing Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988); Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 814 (1984)). 11 government should not profit from illegal activity,”62 the policy behind the independent source doctrine is that the State “should not be put in a worse position ‘simply because of some earlier police error or misconduct.’”63 Thus, “the exclusionary rule

2026Nix, 467 U.S. 431 . 14 of Delaware has recognized the following exceptions to the exclusionary rule: the independent source doctrine;78 the inevitable discovery doctrine;79 the attenuation doctrine;80 the exigent circumstances doctrine;81 and the emergency doctrine.82 These exceptions have each been applied to constitutional violations that vary significantly from one another.

2023That they had found an unconscious female on scene.”). 95 28 A.3d 1046 , 1057–58 (Del. 2011) (internal citations omitted); see also Wagoner, 24 P.3d at 315 (holding that “Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution prohibits us from retroactively and hypothetically correcting the errors of the police at the expense of a defendant’s right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure.”); id. (“We are persuaded by the reasoning of other state courts which have held that inclusion of illegal information in an application for a search warrant automatically precludes application of t

2026Dec. 2, 2024). 67 Murray, 487 U.S. 533 . 68 Matthews, 2024 WL 5200103 at *3 (citing United States v. Price, 558 F.3d 270, 281 (3d Cir. 2009)). 69 Id. 12 A. Evidence obtained pursuant to a general warrant is not disqualified from use at trial when the independent source doctrine exception to the exclusionary rule is applicable.

2026Dec. 2, 2024). 67 Murray, 487 U.S. 533 . 68 Matthews, 2024 WL 5200103 at *3 (citing United States v. Price, 558 F.3d 270, 281 (3d Cir. 2009)). 69 Id. 12 A. Evidence obtained pursuant to a general warrant is not disqualified from use at trial when the independent source doctrine exception to the exclusionary rule is applicable.

2024Assuming, without deciding, that the Court would permit a new warrant, the State still failed to articulate sufficient probable cause that would pass constitutional muster. 40 Terreros, 312 A.3d at 662 (citing Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 (1927); Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 557 (2004)). 41 Id. (citing Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987) (“The Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment categorically prohibits the issuance of any warrant except one ‘particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.’ The manifest purpose of this particu

2022The State responds that because the police did not rely on any evidence obtained by way of Warrant 1 in obtaining Warrant 2 that the independent source doctrine does apply. 31 Id. (citing Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987) (citations omitted); see also Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 345 (2009)(“[T]he central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment [is] the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects.”) (citations omitted).) 32 This Court notes that Warrant 1, in contrast, was only eight (8) pages long and the period of

2022A, at 6:00–6:25. 30 Id. 31 Id. at 6:52–6:53. 32 Jones v. State, 745 A.2d 856, 873 (Del. 1999) 33 See Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280, 1292 (Del. 2008) (“[T]aint may be purged and the evidence may be admissible through one of the doctrinal exceptions to the exclusionary rule, such as the independent source doctrine, the inevitable discovery doctrine, the exigent circumstances doctrine, and the attenuation doctrine.”). 34 The inevitable discovery doctrine was explained in Garnett I.

2015It provides for the exclusion from trial of any evidence recovered or derived from an illegal search and seizure.”42 However, the Delaware Supreme Court has recognized occasions where “official misconduct should not fatally taint evidence that would have been discovered absent that official misconduct.” 43 Rather, “taint may be purged and the evidence may be admissible through one of the doctrinal exceptions to the exclusionary rule, such as the independent source doctrine, the inevitable discovery doctrine, the exigent circumstances doctrine, and the attenuation doctrine.” 44 Delaware accepts

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2026These type of violations, or alleged violations in some cases, include invalid Terry stops,83 out-of-state tracking,84 illegal entry of a residence without a warrant,85 78 See Norman v. State, 976 A.2d 843 (Del. 2009) (applying the independent source doctrine to evidence obtained in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights).

2026While the Supreme Court of Delaware has yet to directly address the applicability of the independent source doctrine to evidence obtained pursuant to an residence; Blake v. State, 954 A.2d 315 (Del. 2008) (applying the emergency doctrine to a warrantless entry and search of a residence). 86 See, e.g., Norman, 976 A.2d 843 (applying the independent source doctrine to evidence obtained in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel). 87 None of the cited cases above demonstrate the Supreme Court applying or rejecting application of an exclusionary rule exception based upon the

2026These social costs include “letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free” and the “toll upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives.” Id. 61 United States v. Beck, 2023 WL 5016614 , at *3 (11th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) (citing Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988); Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 814 (1984)). 11 government should not profit from illegal activity,”62 the policy behind the independent source doctrine is that the State “should not be put in a worse position ‘simply because of some earlier police error or misconduct.’”63 Thus, “the exclusionary rule

2026These social costs include “letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free” and the “toll upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives.” Id. 61 United States v. Beck, 2023 WL 5016614 , at *3 (11th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) (citing Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988); Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 814 (1984)). 11 government should not profit from illegal activity,”62 the policy behind the independent source doctrine is that the State “should not be put in a worse position ‘simply because of some earlier police error or misconduct.’”63 Thus, “the exclusionary rule

2026The independent source doctrine provides that “unlawfully obtained evidence is admissible if the government also obtains that evidence through an independent legal source.”61 While the policy behind the exclusionary rule is that “the 56 Herring v. U.S., 555 U.S. 135, 139 (2009). 57 Davis v. U.S., 564 U.S. 229 , 236-37 (2011). 58 Garnett, 308 A.3d at 642. 59 Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920). 60 Herring, 555 U.S. at 141 .

2026The independent source doctrine provides that “unlawfully obtained evidence is admissible if the government also obtains that evidence through an independent legal source.”61 While the policy behind the exclusionary rule is that “the 56 Herring v. U.S., 555 U.S. 135, 139 (2009). 57 Davis v. U.S., 564 U.S. 229 , 236-37 (2011). 58 Garnett, 308 A.3d at 642. 59 Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920). 60 Herring, 555 U.S. at 141 .

2026The Supreme Court of Delaware has long-recognized exceptions to Delaware’s state exclusionary rule.76 In some instances, Delaware has even adopted exceptions before they entered federal jurisprudence.77 To date, the Supreme Court 74 Leon, 468 U.S. at 907 n.6 (acknowledging that any “rule of evidence that denies the jury access to clearly probative evidence and reliable evidence must bear a heavy burden of justification, and must be carefully limited to the circumstances in which it will pay its way by deterring official unlawlessness.” (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, at 257-58 (1983)

2026The Supreme Court of Delaware has long-recognized exceptions to Delaware’s state exclusionary rule.76 In some instances, Delaware has even adopted exceptions before they entered federal jurisprudence.77 To date, the Supreme Court 74 Leon, 468 U.S. at 907 n.6 (acknowledging that any “rule of evidence that denies the jury access to clearly probative evidence and reliable evidence must bear a heavy burden of justification, and must be carefully limited to the circumstances in which it will pay its way by deterring official unlawlessness.” (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, at 257-58 (1983)

2026The independent source doctrine provides that “unlawfully obtained evidence is admissible if the government also obtains that evidence through an independent legal source.”61 While the policy behind the exclusionary rule is that “the 56 Herring v. U.S., 555 U.S. 135, 139 (2009). 57 Davis v. U.S., 564 U.S. 229 , 236-37 (2011). 58 Garnett, 308 A.3d at 642. 59 Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920). 60 Herring, 555 U.S. at 141 .

2026Before the independent source doctrine can purge tainted evidence, a court must first find that the independent source doctrine applies.184 The United States Supreme Court in Murray provided the test for independent source doctrine 182 Davis 564 U.S. at 236-37 (citations omitted). 183 Leon, 468 U.S. at 907 n.6. 184 Murray, 487 U.S. at 541 . 31 applicability,185 and the test serves as a protection against the independent source doctrine being used as a mechanism to profit from illegal searches.

2026The independent source doctrine provides that “unlawfully obtained evidence is admissible if the government also obtains that evidence through an independent legal source.”61 While the policy behind the exclusionary rule is that “the 56 Herring v. U.S., 555 U.S. 135, 139 (2009). 57 Davis v. U.S., 564 U.S. 229 , 236-37 (2011). 58 Garnett, 308 A.3d at 642. 59 Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920). 60 Herring, 555 U.S. at 141 .

2026These social costs include “letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free” and the “toll upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives.” Id. 61 United States v. Beck, 2023 WL 5016614 , at *3 (11th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) (citing Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988); Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 814 (1984)). 11 government should not profit from illegal activity,”62 the policy behind the independent source doctrine is that the State “should not be put in a worse position ‘simply because of some earlier police error or misconduct.’”63 Thus, “the exclusionary rule

2026The Court holds that when the independent source doctrine applies, evidence obtained pursuant to a general warrant is not disqualified from use at trial. 6 Id. 7 “[T]he permissibility of a particular law-enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1350 (Del. 1991) (quoting Goldsmith v. State, 405 A.2d 109, 111 (Del. 1979)). 8 D.I. 17 Ex.

2026The Court holds that when the independent source doctrine applies, evidence obtained pursuant to a general warrant is not disqualified from use at trial. 6 Id. 7 “[T]he permissibility of a particular law-enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1350 (Del. 1991) (quoting Goldsmith v. State, 405 A.2d 109, 111 (Del. 1979)). 8 D.I. 17 Ex.

2026The Court therefore will not discuss Robinson in its analysis. 90 See Matthews, 2024 WL 5200103 (finding the independent source doctrine applying the evidence first obtained pursuant to a general warrant). 91 See Carter, 2022 WL 1561537 ; Clark, 2024 WL 4025008 (finding the independent source doctrine applying the evidence first obtained pursuant to an overbroad warrant). 92 Wilson v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 7 A.2d 906, 908 (Del.

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2026The Court holds that when the independent source doctrine applies, evidence obtained pursuant to a general warrant is not disqualified from use at trial. 6 Id. 7 “[T]he permissibility of a particular law-enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1350 (Del. 1991) (quoting Goldsmith v. State, 405 A.2d 109, 111 (Del. 1979)). 8 D.I. 17 Ex.

2026The Court holds that when the independent source doctrine applies, evidence obtained pursuant to a general warrant is not disqualified from use at trial. 6 Id. 7 “[T]he permissibility of a particular law-enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1350 (Del. 1991) (quoting Goldsmith v. State, 405 A.2d 109, 111 (Del. 1979)). 8 D.I. 17 Ex.

2026This practice aligns with the Supreme Court of the United States’ guidance that the “exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 (1974).

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2024Ch. 2003)); LaNuova D & B, S.p.A. v. Bowe Co., 513 A.2d 764, 768 (Del. 1986) (“The conduct embraced in subsections (1) and (2), the transaction of business or performance of work and contracting to supply services or things in the State, may supply the jurisdictional basis for suit only with respect to claims which have a nexus to the designated conduct.”)). 8 act must, therefore, “set in motion a series of events which form the basis for the cause of action before the court.”51 The identified act must “form a source of the claim.”52 The in-state jurisdictional acts AEI identifies under subsec