exclusionary rule in Delaware

2026See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443 (1984). 64 Segura, 468 U.S. at 805 (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487 (1963); Silverthorne, 251 U.S. at 392 ). 65 Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280 , 1292 n. 40 (Del. 2008) (citing Jones, 745 A.2d at 873 ). 66 State v. Matthews, 2024 WL 5200103 , at *4 (Del. Super. Dec. 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 doc

2024The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule, “a remedy for a violation of a defendant’s right to be free of illegal searches and seizures,” requires the exclusion of any evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure.30 Under the inevitable discovery exception, long recognized in Delaware, evidence obtained through an illegal search “will not be suppressed if the prosecution can prove that the incriminating evidence 26 Chandler, 132 A.3d at 141 . 27 Id.; Rose, 2022 WL 2387803 , at *4 (reasonable suspicion requires “something more than an officer’s

2026If an exception to the exclusionary rule applies to tainted evidence, that evidence is “purged of the taint.”178 When evidence is “purged of the taint,” the exclusionary rule does not bar 175 Taylor, 260 A.3d at 617; Terreros, 312 A.3d at 663. 176 Taylor, 260 A.3d at 617; Terreros, 312 A.3d at 663. 177 D.I. 24 at 1-2; D.I. 28 at 1-2. 178 Lopez-Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1292 . 29 the evidence from being admitted at trial.

2026See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443 (1984). 64 Segura, 468 U.S. at 805 (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487 (1963); Silverthorne, 251 U.S. at 392 ). 65 Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280 , 1292 n. 40 (Del. 2008) (citing Jones, 745 A.2d at 873 ). 66 State v. Matthews, 2024 WL 5200103 , at *4 (Del. Super. Dec. 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 doc

2026Ct. Sept. 27, 2016) (citing 48 Cook, 374 A.2d at 268 ). 49 See e.g., Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982 (Del. 2004) (drugs found on defendant’s person and in a car admissible under inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule). 50 Garnett, 308 A.3d at 646-47.

2023The Iowa Supreme Court—ruling on the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence of the body, in addition to evidence derived from an autopsy of the body— held that the evidence was admissible under the inevitable-discovery exception because it would have been discovered by the search party if not for the defendant’s assistance. 92 Id. at 268 (quoting Harold S. Novikoff, supra note 42 at 91). 93 467 U.S. 431 . 35 The Supreme Court, acknowledging that the “‘vast majority’ of all courts, both state and federal, recognize an inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule[,]”94 upheld the

2026“The principal cost of applying the rule is . . . letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free— something that offends basic concepts of the criminal justice system.”72 The exclusionary rule “deprives juries of probative evidence of a crime; and by depriving juries of probative evidence, the exclusionary rule often works at odds with society’s interest in prosecuting and punishing criminals.”73 These high social costs could cause a victim to never receive the justice they deserve through no fault of their own. 70 Terreros, 312 A.3d at 663. 71 Garnett, 308 A.3d at 642. 72 Herring, 5

2020When the Court of Common Pleas so held, it cited no authority justifying an application of the exclusionary rule on that basis. 28 Lafave 1 Search and Seizure § 1.8(e) (5th ed). 29 Evans, 514 U.S. at 13-14 (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 (1984) and United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974)).

2026What matters for the exclusionary rule is simply that a constitutional violation occurred. 88 For example, in Dorsey, the Supreme Court refused to adopt the good faith exception for Delaware’s state exclusionary rule because the Delaware Constitution requires probable cause to be present in a warrant. 761 A.2d at 820 . 16 unconstitutional warrant, the Superior Court of Delaware has done so multiple times.89 The Superior Court has applied the independent source doctrine to evidence obtained under both general90 and overbroad warrants,91 with these cases often sharing similar facts to those at i

2023The remedy for a search-and-seizure violation is the suppression of the evidence actually obtained (or derived) from that unlawful search or seizure.40 Because there was no evidence obtained from the allegedly unlawful pre-4:00 a.m. entry there is nothing to suppress therefrom and the Court will not provide a remedy for that alleged violation via exclusion of evidence from a later wholly-unaffected separate search.41 39 Suppression Hr’g, Def.’s Ex. 1 (body-worn camera from July 22, 2022). 40 Dorsey v. State, 761 A.2d 807, 821 (Del. 2000). 41 State v. Upshur, 2011 WL 1465527 , at *23 (Del. Supe

2024See also Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364 (1998) (holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to parole revocation proceedings); Walker v. State, 205 A.3d 823, 825-26 (Del. 2019) (rejecting probationer’s argument that evidence seized during an administrative search should have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment, but recognizing that suppression is appropriate in a VOP proceeding when an administrative search does not comply with 11 Del.

2018In addition, in the 2010 Jenkins case, the Court noted in a footnote that “[t]his Court has not yet addressed whether the exclusionary rule should apply to violation of probation hearings [and] ‘[W]e do not reach the State’s argument that the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings.’”21 In those cases, this Court did not consider the substantive question of whether the exclusionary rule applies to VOP proceedings. 19 Id. at 1150 . 20 Id. at 1155–56. 21 Id. at 1155 n.41 (quoting Fuller v. State, 844 A.2d 290, 293 (Del. 2004)). 14 In Pennsylvania Board of Probation a

2026“The principal cost of applying the rule is . . . letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free— something that offends basic concepts of the criminal justice system.”72 The exclusionary rule “deprives juries of probative evidence of a crime; and by depriving juries of probative evidence, the exclusionary rule often works at odds with society’s interest in prosecuting and punishing criminals.”73 These high social costs could cause a victim to never receive the justice they deserve through no fault of their own. 70 Terreros, 312 A.3d at 663. 71 Garnett, 308 A.3d at 642. 72 Herring, 5

2025See Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 26-27 (1995) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (arguing the exclusionary rule should extend to information gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment due to clerical errors, and using the NCIC as a theoretical example to illustrate how clerical errors can have an appreciable impact on a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights); Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 155 (2009) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (using the NCIC as a theoretical example to illustrate the same point as in Evans, supra.); Baker v. McCollan 443 U.S. 137, 156 n.20 (1979) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (e

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.

2026See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443 (1984). 64 Segura, 468 U.S. at 805 (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487 (1963); Silverthorne, 251 U.S. at 392 ). 65 Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280 , 1292 n. 40 (Del. 2008) (citing Jones, 745 A.2d at 873 ). 66 State v. Matthews, 2024 WL 5200103 , at *4 (Del. Super. Dec. 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 doc

2026Ct. Sept. 27, 2016) (citing 48 Cook, 374 A.2d at 268 ). 49 See e.g., Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982 (Del. 2004) (drugs found on defendant’s person and in a car admissible under inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule). 50 Garnett, 308 A.3d at 646-47.

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

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

2024C. § 2307(a), “The warrant shall designate the house, place, conveyance or person to be searched and shall describe the things or persons sought as particularly as possible.” (emphasis added.) 25 Wheeler, 135 A.3d 282, 304 (Del. 2016). 26 Blackwood, 2020 WL 975465 , at *2. 27 Sisson, 903 A.2d at 296 (citing Scott v. State, 615 A.2d 532 (Del. 1992). 6 The independent source doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule that allows evidence to be admitted despite illegal investigatory activity, so long as the discovery of the evidence stems from a source independent of the illegality.28 The

2016Id. at 866 . 32 Wheeler v. State, 135 A.3d 282, 298 (Del. 2016). 33 Id. at 298 n.71 (stating that the Delaware Constitution provides additional protections in determining whether a seizure has occurred, that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply in Delaware, and by requiring more than probable cause for the issuance of a night time search warrant). 12 authority that provides for any additional protection under the Delaware Constitution in areas outside those articulated in Wheeler.34 Moreover, the Court has been unable to find any historical evidence of a divergence

2024Ct. R. 8. 4 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 5 Garnett v. State, 308 A.3d 625 , 642 (Del. 2023). 6 Thompson v. State, 192 A.3d 544, 552 (Del. 2018) (noting that nine United States Circuit of Appeals have held that the exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation proceedings).

2019A. 9 Thompson v. State , 192 A.3d 544 , 549 (Del. 2018). 10 Zebroski v. State , 12 A.3d 1115 , 1119 (Del. 2010) (en banc). 11 192 A.3d at 551 -552 . 12 See id. at 552 ("We have no reason not to follow what appears to be the entirety of the federal weight of authority, and hold that the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings under Amendments IV and XIV of the Federal Constitution."). 13 956 A.2d at 10 -11 . 14 Id. at 15 . 15 Id. at 7 . 16 Id. at 7 n.1. 17 See Webster v. State , 213 A.2d 298 , 301 (Del. 1965) ("[T]he exclusionary rule with which we deal here [for an

2020IV (guaranteeing the right of the people to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”). 22 State v. Onumonu, 2001 WL 695539 , at *2 (Del. Super. June 18, 2001) (citing United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984)). 23 Virdin v. State, 780 A.2d 1024, 1030 (Del. 2001). 24 Id. 25 See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) (explaining that government actors for purposes of the Fourth Amendment are not limited to the police and include government officials generally). 26 See Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (explaining that th

2020IV (guaranteeing the right of the people to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”). 22 State v. Onumonu, 2001 WL 695539 , at *2 (Del. Super. June 18, 2001) (citing United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984)). 23 Virdin v. State, 780 A.2d 1024, 1030 (Del. 2001). 24 Id. 25 See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) (explaining that government actors for purposes of the Fourth Amendment are not limited to the police and include government officials generally). 26 See Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (explaining that th

2020IV (guaranteeing the right of the people to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”). 22 State v. Onumonu, 2001 WL 695539 , at *2 (Del. Super. June 18, 2001) (citing United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984)). 23 Virdin v. State, 780 A.2d 1024, 1030 (Del. 2001). 24 Id. 25 See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) (explaining that government actors for purposes of the Fourth Amendment are not limited to the police and include government officials generally). 26 See Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (explaining that th

2020IV (guaranteeing the right of the people to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”). 22 State v. Onumonu, 2001 WL 695539 , at *2 (Del. Super. June 18, 2001) (citing United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984)). 23 Virdin v. State, 780 A.2d 1024, 1030 (Del. 2001). 24 Id. 25 See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) (explaining that government actors for purposes of the Fourth Amendment are not limited to the police and include government officials generally). 26 See Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (explaining that th

2018In addition, in the 2010 Jenkins case, the Court noted in a footnote that “[t]his Court has not yet addressed whether the exclusionary rule should apply to violation of probation hearings [and] ‘[W]e do not reach the State’s argument that the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings.’”21 In those cases, this Court did not consider the substantive question of whether the exclusionary rule applies to VOP proceedings. 19 Id. at 1150 . 20 Id. at 1155–56. 21 Id. at 1155 n.41 (quoting Fuller v. State, 844 A.2d 290, 293 (Del. 2004)). 14 In Pennsylvania Board of Probation a

2018In addition, in the 2010 Jenkins case, the Court noted in a footnote that “[t]his Court has not yet addressed whether the exclusionary rule should apply to violation of probation hearings [and] ‘[W]e do not reach the State’s argument that the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings.’”21 In those cases, this Court did not consider the substantive question of whether the exclusionary rule applies to VOP proceedings. 19 Id. at 1150 . 20 Id. at 1155–56. 21 Id. at 1155 n.41 (quoting Fuller v. State, 844 A.2d 290, 293 (Del. 2004)). 14 In Pennsylvania Board of Probation a

2024For instance, Defendant cites to Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), as he describes the exclusionary rule of evidence.

2024We address Register’s claim under the United States Constitution. 71 Diggs, 257 A.3d at 1003 (citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 654 (1961)); Jones, 745 A.2d at 872 (“The exclusionary rule acts as a remedy for a violation of a defendant’s right to be free of illegal searches and seizures.

2020Applying the exclusionary rule’s remedy in this instance, (1) in 31 Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 139 (2009). 32 Id. at 139-40 (quoting Calandra, 414 U.S. at 348 ). 10 the absence of a full analysis regarding the paramedic’s status, (2) where probable cause was available to both the paramedic and the arresting officer, was legal error.

2020When the Court of Common Pleas so held, it cited no authority justifying an application of the exclusionary rule on that basis. 28 Lafave 1 Search and Seizure § 1.8(e) (5th ed). 29 Evans, 514 U.S. at 13-14 (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 (1984) and United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974)).

2022Even if Mr. Martin were to satisfy the exceptions suggested (which he hasn’t), he must also plead specific and 62 See Martin, 2021 WL 1030348 , at *1. 63 “[F]ederal courts will not collaterally review claims of unreasonable search and seizure when the defendant ‘has previously been afforded an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his claim in the state court.’” State v. Conyers, 413 A.2d 1264, 1265-66 (Del. Super. Ct. 1979) (quoting Stone, 428 U.S. at 469 ); Stone, 428 U.S. at 489-90 (“The costs of applying the exclusionary rule even at trial and on direct review are well known: the foc

2022Even if Mr. Martin were to satisfy the exceptions suggested (which he hasn’t), he must also plead specific and 62 See Martin, 2021 WL 1030348 , at *1. 63 “[F]ederal courts will not collaterally review claims of unreasonable search and seizure when the defendant ‘has previously been afforded an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his claim in the state court.’” State v. Conyers, 413 A.2d 1264, 1265-66 (Del. Super. Ct. 1979) (quoting Stone, 428 U.S. at 469 ); Stone, 428 U.S. at 489-90 (“The costs of applying the exclusionary rule even at trial and on direct review are well known: the foc

2019Accordingly, the evidence seized during the search of Defendant’s residence must be suppressed.23 20 Dorsey, 761 A.2d at 814-21. 21 See State v. Henderson, 906 A.2d 232, 244 (Del. Super. 2005) (“[T]here [is] no room in the Delaware Constitution for an exception to the requirement of probable cause to obtain a search warrant.”). 22 See Rickards v. State, 77 A.2d 199, 205 (Del. 1950) (“We conceive it the duty of the courts to protect constitutional guarantees.

2001Coolidge, 91 S.Ct. at 2049 ; see Rickards v. State, Del.Supr., 77 A.2d 199, 204 (1950) (adopting the exclusionary rule because "[t]he most effective way to protect the guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure and compulsory self-incrimnation is to exclude from evidence any matter obtained by a violation of them”). 14 .

2026See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443 (1984). 64 Segura, 468 U.S. at 805 (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487 (1963); Silverthorne, 251 U.S. at 392 ). 65 Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280 , 1292 n. 40 (Del. 2008) (citing Jones, 745 A.2d at 873 ). 66 State v. Matthews, 2024 WL 5200103 , at *4 (Del. Super. Dec. 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 doc

2024For instance, Defendant cites to Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), as he describes the exclusionary rule of evidence.

2025See Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 26-27 (1995) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (arguing the exclusionary rule should extend to information gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment due to clerical errors, and using the NCIC as a theoretical example to illustrate how clerical errors can have an appreciable impact on a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights); Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 155 (2009) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (using the NCIC as a theoretical example to illustrate the same point as in Evans, supra.); Baker v. McCollan 443 U.S. 137, 156 n.20 (1979) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (e

2025See Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 26-27 (1995) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (arguing the exclusionary rule should extend to information gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment due to clerical errors, and using the NCIC as a theoretical example to illustrate how clerical errors can have an appreciable impact on a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights); Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 155 (2009) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (using the NCIC as a theoretical example to illustrate the same point as in Evans, supra.); Baker v. McCollan 443 U.S. 137, 156 n.20 (1979) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (e

2026See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443 (1984). 64 Segura, 468 U.S. at 805 (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487 (1963); Silverthorne, 251 U.S. at 392 ). 65 Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280 , 1292 n. 40 (Del. 2008) (citing Jones, 745 A.2d at 873 ). 66 State v. Matthews, 2024 WL 5200103 , at *4 (Del. Super. Dec. 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 doc

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

2026Ct. Sept. 27, 2016) (citing 48 Cook, 374 A.2d at 268 ). 49 See e.g., Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982 (Del. 2004) (drugs found on defendant’s person and in a car admissible under inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule). 50 Garnett, 308 A.3d at 646-47.

2025Defense counsel addressed this issue with Lively in a letter, dated September 20, 2023, in which he explained that “the police would eventually tow the car because it had no insurance so it could not be driven on the road and they are obligated to do an ‘inventory search’ and the gun firearm would have been discovered then.”77 Given that there was no basis to file a motion to suppress, 74 Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 987 (Del. 2004) (quoting Cook v. State, 374 A.2d 264, 267-68 (Del. 1977)). 75 D.I. 1. 76 D.I. 49. 77 D.I. 40, Appendix to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Withdraw at A91-92 (

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

2026See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443 (1984). 64 Segura, 468 U.S. at 805 (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487 (1963); Silverthorne, 251 U.S. at 392 ). 65 Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280 , 1292 n. 40 (Del. 2008) (citing Jones, 745 A.2d at 873 ). 66 State v. Matthews, 2024 WL 5200103 , at *4 (Del. Super. Dec. 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 doc

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

2023When the challenged evidence has an independent source, exclusion of such evidence would put the police in a worse position than they would have been in absent any error or 77 Def.’s Mot. to Suppress ¶ 23. 78 Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280, 1292 (Del. 2008) (citations omitted). 79 Norman v. State, 976 A.2d 843, 859 (Del. 2009) (citations omitted). 19 violation.80 As the Third Circuit has since explained, when applying the Independent Source Doctrine, “the issue is whether the police would have applied for a warrant without the material tainted by a warrantless search.”81 Here, Taylor su

2025For these reasons, Swanson’s de facto arrest was not supported by probable cause, and the evidence flowing therefrom must be excluded.107 Because we reverse on the basis set forth above, we do not need to address whether the Superior Court failed to make a sufficient inquiry into potential juror bias. 107 See Register, 337 A.3d at 1233-34 (“Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained by searches and seizures that violate [constitutional] guarantees is inadmissible.” (quoting Diggs, 257 A.3d at 1003)). 31 V.

2024We address Register’s claim under the United States Constitution. 71 Diggs, 257 A.3d at 1003 (citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 654 (1961)); Jones, 745 A.2d at 872 (“The exclusionary rule acts as a remedy for a violation of a defendant’s right to be free of illegal searches and seizures.