four-corners test in Delaware

2025C.§ 2306. 103 Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807, 811 (Del. 2000) (referring to the four corners test as a “time honored standard”); Valentine v. State, 207, A.3d 566, 570 (Del. 2019) (“it is well settled that any finding of probable cause must be based on the information that appears within the four corners of the application or affidavit.”); see, e.g., Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 203 (Del. 1980); Sisson, 903 A.2d at 296; LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103, 1107-08 (Del. 2008); State v. Holden; 60 A.3d 1110, 1114 (Del. 2013); Cooper v. State, 228 A.3d 399, 405 (Del. 2020). 27 In other words, the f

2023App. 1986)). 54 207 A.3d 566, 570 (Del. 2019) (citing State v. Holden, 60 A.3d 1110, 1114 (Del. 2013) (noting that the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement for warrants “must be premised on the information within the four-corners of the affidavit”) and Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807, 811 (Del. 2000) (referring to the four corners test as a “time honored standard”)).

2025C.§ 2306. 103 Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807, 811 (Del. 2000) (referring to the four corners test as a “time honored standard”); Valentine v. State, 207, A.3d 566, 570 (Del. 2019) (“it is well settled that any finding of probable cause must be based on the information that appears within the four corners of the application or affidavit.”); see, e.g., Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 203 (Del. 1980); Sisson, 903 A.2d at 296; LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103, 1107-08 (Del. 2008); State v. Holden; 60 A.3d 1110, 1114 (Del. 2013); Cooper v. State, 228 A.3d 399, 405 (Del. 2020). 27 In other words, the f

2023C. § 2306. 8 Hyland, 2020 WL 1847475 , at *2 (citing Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288, 296 (Del. 2006)). 9 338 A.2d 571 (Del. 1975). 4 Supreme Court limited probable cause review of a challenged search to the four corners of the search warrant affidavit.10 Pierson explained that the Delaware criminal code “contemplate[s] a ‘four-corners’ test for probable cause; sufficient facts must appear on the face of the affidavit so that a magistrate’s personal knowledge notwithstanding, a reviewing Court can verify the existence of probable cause.”11 The Pierson Court cautioned that, in applying the test,

2025C.§ 2306. 103 Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807, 811 (Del. 2000) (referring to the four corners test as a “time honored standard”); Valentine v. State, 207, A.3d 566, 570 (Del. 2019) (“it is well settled that any finding of probable cause must be based on the information that appears within the four corners of the application or affidavit.”); see, e.g., Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 203 (Del. 1980); Sisson, 903 A.2d at 296; LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103, 1107-08 (Del. 2008); State v. Holden; 60 A.3d 1110, 1114 (Del. 2013); Cooper v. State, 228 A.3d 399, 405 (Del. 2020). 27 In other words, the f

2017Regardless, the 210 address is clearly referenced in the affidavit as being a separate residence and there are no facts cited in the affidavit permitting an inference that this case involves communal living space. 4 E.g., LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103, 1107 (Del. 2008). 4 warrant that is based on probable cause. 5 It is well settled that “[a]n affidavit in support of a search warrant must, within the four-corners of the affidavit, 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 pa

2017See also Gardner v. State, 567 A.2d 404 (Del. 1989). 90 Id. 99 Id. (citing Stones v. State, 1996 WL 145775 , at *2 (Del. 1996) (ORDER) (quoting Gates, 462 U.s. at 238)). 39 State v. Cortez A. Hamilton, Sr. I.D.

2016See also Gardner v. State, 567 A.2d 404 (Del. 1989). 6 reasonable inferences from the factual allegations within the affidavit. 34 As such, probable cause may exist under the totality of the circumstances where “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” 35 While the four-corners test “restricts the scope of a reviewing courts inquiry,” the Court is still permitted to use common sense in its analysis. 36 This allows the Court to avoid a hypertechnical approach when reviewing a search warrant. 37 Moreover, the Court must give great d

2017NO. 1501012432 WLW October 12, 2017 Delaware courts engage in a four-corners test to make a probable cause determination.93 Within the four-corners of the search warrant affidavit, the document must present sufficient facts for a judge or magistrate to form a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and the property to be seized will be found in a particular place.90 When determining whether probable cause to obtain a search warrant exists, the Court will apply a totality of the circumstances test.97 This analysis allows a judge or magistrate to draw reasonable inferences from the

2017Ct. 2005) (stating that “[o]n a motion to suppress challenging the validity of a search warrant, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged search or seizure was unlawful”). 3 Fink v. State, 817 A.2d 781, 786 (Del. 2003). 4 Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288, 296 (Del. 2006). 5 Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 203 (Del. 1980). 6 Sission, 883 A.2d at 875 . 5 deference to a magistrate’s decision that a warrant is supported by probable cause. 7 Notwithstanding this deference, the reviewing court’s “‘substantial basis’ review requires [it] to determine whether ‘the warrant was inva

2025C.§ 2306. 103 Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807, 811 (Del. 2000) (referring to the four corners test as a “time honored standard”); Valentine v. State, 207, A.3d 566, 570 (Del. 2019) (“it is well settled that any finding of probable cause must be based on the information that appears within the four corners of the application or affidavit.”); see, e.g., Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 203 (Del. 1980); Sisson, 903 A.2d at 296; LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103, 1107-08 (Del. 2008); State v. Holden; 60 A.3d 1110, 1114 (Del. 2013); Cooper v. State, 228 A.3d 399, 405 (Del. 2020). 27 In other words, the f

2023App. 1986)). 54 207 A.3d 566, 570 (Del. 2019) (citing State v. Holden, 60 A.3d 1110, 1114 (Del. 2013) (noting that the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement for warrants “must be premised on the information within the four-corners of the affidavit”) and Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807, 811 (Del. 2000) (referring to the four corners test as a “time honored standard”)).

2025C.§ 2306. 103 Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807, 811 (Del. 2000) (referring to the four corners test as a “time honored standard”); Valentine v. State, 207, A.3d 566, 570 (Del. 2019) (“it is well settled that any finding of probable cause must be based on the information that appears within the four corners of the application or affidavit.”); see, e.g., Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 203 (Del. 1980); Sisson, 903 A.2d at 296; LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103, 1107-08 (Del. 2008); State v. Holden; 60 A.3d 1110, 1114 (Del. 2013); Cooper v. State, 228 A.3d 399, 405 (Del. 2020). 27 In other words, the f

2017Ct. 2005) (stating that “[o]n a motion to suppress challenging the validity of a search warrant, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged search or seizure was unlawful”). 3 Fink v. State, 817 A.2d 781, 786 (Del. 2003). 4 Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288, 296 (Del. 2006). 5 Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 203 (Del. 1980). 6 Sission, 883 A.2d at 875 . 5 deference to a magistrate’s decision that a warrant is supported by probable cause. 7 Notwithstanding this deference, the reviewing court’s “‘substantial basis’ review requires [it] to determine whether ‘the warrant was inva

2025Indeed, this Court has specifically admonished against insisting on “elaborate specificity”105 or a “hypertechnical analysis of [the underlying affidavit’s] separate allegations.”106 Rather, a magistrate “may draw reasonable inferences from the factual allegations in the affidavit,”107 and should use “practical, common-sense” judgment in her decision.108 To that end, when evaluating the magistrate’s determination under the Four Corners Test, although reviewing courts should not “simply rubber stamp a magistrate’s 104 Hooks, 416 A.2d at 203 (“Probable cause is established when a nexus between t

2023App. 1986)). 54 207 A.3d 566, 570 (Del. 2019) (citing State v. Holden, 60 A.3d 1110, 1114 (Del. 2013) (noting that the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement for warrants “must be premised on the information within the four-corners of the affidavit”) and Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807, 811 (Del. 2000) (referring to the four corners test as a “time honored standard”)).

2023There is no suggestion in the record that judicial neutrality was compromised or that the trial judge somehow acted as an “adjunct law en- forcement officer” or otherwise participated in the police investigation.56 The trial judge had no recollection that he signed the search warrant, an event that occurred 16 months prior to Willis’ trial, and there was no formal recusal motion made during trial by the de- fense.57 Faced with a record that reveals no prejudice or bias on the part of the trial judge, Willis advocates that this Court impose a bright-line rule that a judge who signs a warrant is

2019C. § 2306. 7 Id. § 2307. 8 See Buckham v. State, 185 A.3d 1, 16 (Del. 2018); Dorsey, 761 A.2d at 811–12; Cannon, 2007 WL 1849022 , at *3. 9 Cannon, 2007 WL 1849022 , at *3; see also Dorsey, 761 A.2d at 811–12 (“[T]he information set forth within the affidavit’s four corners, and any logical inference from the specific facts alleged, must demonstrate why it is objectively reasonable for the police to expect to find the items sought in those locations.”). 5 the warrant application provided the issuing judicial officer with a “substantial basis” to conclude that probable cause existed.10 I.

2016More on point is the Third Circuit decision in U.S. v. Kaplan that established that “[s]tatements in an affidavit may not be read in isolation, the affidavit must be read as a whole” and that “[t]he issuing judge or magistrate may give considerable weight to the conclusions of experienced law enforcement officers.”59 As in the case at hand, 55 Garcia, 752 F.3d at 385-89 . 56 Id. at 384 . 57 Id. at 391 . 58 Id. at 391-92 . 59 U.S. v. Kaplan, 526 F. App'x 208, 212 (3d Cir. 2013) 36 Kaplan involved an investigation into a drug trafficking operation where investigators obtained information through

2016Furthermore, the Albert Court directly addressed the extent to which an officer’s training and experience can establish the “evidentiary nexus” between a cell phone and illegal drug activity.23 In examining this issue, that Court cited States v. Gholston as persuasive authority for the law on cell phone search warrants due to the lack of authority in Delaware on the matter.24 Namely, in Gholston the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the “affidavit established a minimally sufficient nexus between the criminal activity under investigation and Defendant's cell

2016Furthermore, the Albert Court directly addressed the extent to which an officer’s training and experience can establish the “evidentiary nexus” between a cell phone and illegal drug activity.23 In examining this issue, that Court cited States v. Gholston as persuasive authority for the law on cell phone search warrants due to the lack of authority in Delaware on the matter.24 Namely, in Gholston the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the “affidavit established a minimally sufficient nexus between the criminal activity under investigation and Defendant's cell

2014See also Gardner v. State, 567 A.2d 404 (Del. 1989). 14 Id. 15 Id. (citing Stones v. State, 1996 WL 145775 , at *2 (Del.1996) (Order) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). 16 See Holton, 2011 WL 4638781 , at *3. 17 Id. 18 Sisson, 903 A.2d at 296 . 19 Holton, 2011 WL 4638781 , at *3. 20 Franks v. Delaware, 38 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978). 21 Rivera, 7 A.3d at 969 . 12 from the warrant. 22 Omissions are made with reckless disregard of the truth when an affiant recklessly omits facts than any reasonable person would know that a judge would want to hav

2014See also Gardner v. State, 567 A.2d 404 (Del. 1989). 14 Id. 15 Id. (citing Stones v. State, 1996 WL 145775 , at *2 (Del.1996) (Order) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). 16 See Holton, 2011 WL 4638781 , at *3. 17 Id. 18 Sisson, 903 A.2d at 296 . 19 Holton, 2011 WL 4638781 , at *3. 20 Franks v. Delaware, 38 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978). 21 Rivera, 7 A.3d at 969 . 12 from the warrant. 22 Omissions are made with reckless disregard of the truth when an affiant recklessly omits facts than any reasonable person would know that a judge would want to hav

2014See also Gardner v. State, 567 A.2d 404 (Del. 1989). 14 Id. 15 Id. (citing Stones v. State, 1996 WL 145775 , at *2 (Del.1996) (Order) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). 16 See Holton, 2011 WL 4638781 , at *3. 17 Id. 18 Sisson, 903 A.2d at 296 . 19 Holton, 2011 WL 4638781 , at *3. 20 Franks v. Delaware, 38 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978). 21 Rivera, 7 A.3d at 969 . 12 from the warrant. 22 Omissions are made with reckless disregard of the truth when an affiant recklessly omits facts than any reasonable person would know that a judge would want to hav