emergency 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

2025Oct. 11, 2019). 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 Id. 20 Hall v. State, 14 A.3d 512, 515 (Del. 2011). 5 violate the Fourth Amendment under the emergency doctrine if the State proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence; (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searche

2025Oct. 11, 2019). 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 Hall v. State, 14 A.3d 512, 515 (Del. 2011). (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence; (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched.20 The first prong of the emergency doctrine is clearly satisfied as officers had reasonable grounds to believe an imme

2023It concluded that “the State did not meet its burden to show that the emergency doctrine was applicable.” Id. 77 Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 , 113 n.3 (2006) (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393 (1978)). 78 King, 563 U.S. at 470 .

2017In Guererri, police responded to a 911 call that someone fired gunshots in the area.16 Upon arrival, police observed an SUV hit by shotgun fire, shell casings on the street, and evidence that pellets had struck a house.17 Neighbors told police they believed people were inside the residence because the SUV was on the lawn.18 The police called the home and knocked on the doors and windows, but received no answer. 19 Worried that someone in the house may have been injured by shotgun fire, the police kicked open the front door.20 Upon entry, they encountered Guererri.21 He informed the officers th

2008Id. at 406 (quoting Lopez v. State, 861 A.2d 1245, 1248-49 (Del.2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 .

2007Lopez v. State, 861 A.2d 1245, 1248-49 (Del.2004) (citations omitted). 2 .

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

2008Later, in Blake v. State, 954 A.2d 315, 319 (Del.2008), again in the context of the emergency doctrine exception, we explained that "[o]nly under certain limited circumstances are police justified 'in making a warrantless entry and conducting a search of the premises to provide aid to people or property.’ One of those circumstances is the emergency doctrine exception, which does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the three-pronged test of Guererri is satisfied.” 31 .

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

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

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

2023Accordingly, the destruction of evidence must be “imminent” King, 563 U.S. at 460 , and a “hot pursuit” actually requires “some sort of a chase.” United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 , 42–43 (1976). 79 962 A.2d 210, 218 (Del. 2008).

2022Under the emergency doctrine, police may conduct what might otherwise be deemed an illegal entry, search, or seizure where “there is an immediate need for the assistance of police to protect life or property.”74 When challenged, the State must establish that a direct relationship existed between the area searched (or the item seized) and the emergency.75 No doubt, the events that transpired here—a spontaneous, unprovoked, daytime shooting inside of a restaurant, with the fleeing shooter still at large—is an 73 Everett v. State, 186 A.3d 1224, 1229 (Del. 2018). 74 Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , a

2022Plain View Another well- and long-accepted exception is the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence in their direct observation.40 A warrantless seizure is valid under the plain view doctrine if the State can establish that: “(1) the officer 36 See Hall v. State, 14 A.3d 512, 515-18 (Del. 2011). 37 Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , at *2 (citing Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403, 406 (Del. 2007)). 38 Guererri, 922 A.2d at 406 . 39 See Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , at *3. 40 Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 985 (Del. 2004). -9- is lawfully in a position to observe the [item], (2) the

2022Plain View Another well- and long-accepted exception is the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence in their direct observation.40 A warrantless seizure is valid under the plain view doctrine if the State can establish that: “(1) the officer 36 See Hall v. State, 14 A.3d 512, 515-18 (Del. 2011). 37 Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , at *2 (citing Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403, 406 (Del. 2007)). 38 Guererri, 922 A.2d at 406 . 39 See Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , at *3. 40 Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 985 (Del. 2004). -9- is lawfully in a position to observe the [item], (2) the

2022Hr’g Tr. at 65; see generally Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (allowing a criminal defendant to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on false statements of facts). 24 Def.’s Mot. to Suppress ¶¶ 7-10. 25 Id. ¶¶ 16-20. 26 State’s Resp. ¶¶ 15-16. 27 Id. ¶¶ 17-19. -6- surveillance footage at the Market Street Grill was valid under the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement.28 And last, that Mr. Baul’s actions were more than mere consent—he proactively volunteered the surveillance footage to the detectives.29 The State initially argued that Mr. Hol

2021July 27, 2009) (TABLE) (“[T]he totality of the circumstances must indicate that the detaining officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” (alterations omitted) (quoting Sierra v. State, 958 A.2d 825, 828 (Del. 2008))); Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403, 406 (Del. 2007) (applying the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof to the showing required to establish the legality of a warrantless search under the emergency doctrine); see also State v. DuBose, 2016 WL 1590583 , at *3 (Del.

2017There, the State must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) The police have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by the intent to arrest and seize evidence. (3) There must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place being searched. 11 6 State v. Hedley, 593 A.2d 576, 582 (Del.

2017In this regard, the Hedley court correctly noted that “[w]hile these exceptions may overlap, to some extent, and some 28 593 A.2d 576 (Del.

2017Ct. 2016) 5 Hunter v. State, 783 A.2d 558, 560 (Del.2001) 3 Discussion A warrantless search and seizure is presumptively unreasonable, subject to certain exceptions. 6 The United States Supreme Court has noted that “physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”7 Nevertheless, it has recognized certain limited exceptions to the prohibition against warrantless searches of a person’s home. 8 One of these exceptions is the “emergency doctrine”, which allows an otherwise illegal entry if there is an immediate need for the assistance of

2017In Guererri, police responded to a 911 call that someone fired gunshots in the area.16 Upon arrival, police observed an SUV hit by shotgun fire, shell casings on the street, and evidence that pellets had struck a house.17 Neighbors told police they believed people were inside the residence because the SUV was on the lawn.18 The police called the home and knocked on the doors and windows, but received no answer. 19 Worried that someone in the house may have been injured by shotgun fire, the police kicked open the front door.20 Upon entry, they encountered Guererri.21 He informed the officers th

2017In Guererri, police responded to a 911 call that someone fired gunshots in the area.16 Upon arrival, police observed an SUV hit by shotgun fire, shell casings on the street, and evidence that pellets had struck a house.17 Neighbors told police they believed people were inside the residence because the SUV was on the lawn.18 The police called the home and knocked on the doors and windows, but received no answer. 19 Worried that someone in the house may have been injured by shotgun fire, the police kicked open the front door.20 Upon entry, they encountered Guererri.21 He informed the officers th