search warrant requirement in Delaware

2023His in-depth historical analysis began with the recognition by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution that “[t]he concept of the home as a privileged place, the privacy of which may not be disturbed by unreasonable governmental intrusion, is basic in a free society.”45 Citing Payton, this Court in Mason stated that “the history of the constitutional provisions limiting searches and seizures leaves little doubt that searches and seizures are presumptively ‘unreasonable’ unless they are authorized by warrants, issued upon probable cause, and supported by oath or affirmation before a neutral judici

2023His in-depth historical analysis began with the recognition by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution that “[t]he concept of the home as a privileged place, the privacy of which may not be disturbed by unreasonable governmental intrusion, is basic in a free society.”45 Citing Payton, this Court in Mason stated that “the history of the constitutional provisions limiting searches and seizures leaves little doubt that searches and seizures are presumptively ‘unreasonable’ unless they are authorized by warrants, issued upon probable cause, and supported by oath or affirmation before a neutral judici

2023C. § 2302 (“A search of a person, house, building, conveyance, place or other thing may be made without a warrant if the search is made for a person hotly pursued provided the pursuer has probable cause to believe that such person has committed a felony or a misdemeanor.”). 51 Mason, 534 A.2d at 248 (“One of the recognized exceptions to the search warrant requirement is the doctrine of exigent circumstances.” (citing Patrick, 227 A.2d at 489 )). 15 that swift action is required to prevent imminent danger to life.52 In this appeal, no party contends that at the time the officers entered the hom

2023We then observed that “[o]ne of the recognized exceptions to the search warrant requirement is the doctrine of exigent circumstances.” Id. (citing Patrick v. State, 227 A.2d 486, 489 (Del. 1967)).

1990Though any exception to the search warrant requirement must be strictly construed, see Mincey, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 ; Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984); United States v. United States Disk Ck, 407 U.S. 297 , 92 S.Ct. 2125 , 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972), the above-quoted language from Patrick does not indicate such a restrictive reading.

1990Though any exception to the search warrant requirement must be strictly construed, see Mincey, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 ; Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984); United States v. United States Disk Ck, 407 U.S. 297 , 92 S.Ct. 2125 , 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972), the above-quoted language from Patrick does not indicate such a restrictive reading.

2025We emphasize that we address Johns’ challenges—other than the search warrant claim— under a plain error standard of review, and nothing in our opinion should be construed as a suggestion on how we would rule on those issues on the merits in a subsequent case. 163 See Pitsilides, 128 F.4th at 212; See also United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637, 657 (6th Cir. 2024)(“In determining whether an individual has met his burden to demonstrate that he is not dangerous, and thus falls outside of § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionally permissible scope, courts . . . must focus on each individual's specific cha

2025We emphasize that we address Johns’ challenges—other than the search warrant claim— under a plain error standard of review, and nothing in our opinion should be construed as a suggestion on how we would rule on those issues on the merits in a subsequent case. 163 See Pitsilides, 128 F.4th at 212; See also United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637, 657 (6th Cir. 2024)(“In determining whether an individual has met his burden to demonstrate that he is not dangerous, and thus falls outside of § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionally permissible scope, courts . . . must focus on each individual's specific cha

2023His in-depth historical analysis began with the recognition by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution that “[t]he concept of the home as a privileged place, the privacy of which may not be disturbed by unreasonable governmental intrusion, is basic in a free society.”45 Citing Payton, this Court in Mason stated that “the history of the constitutional provisions limiting searches and seizures leaves little doubt that searches and seizures are presumptively ‘unreasonable’ unless they are authorized by warrants, issued upon probable cause, and supported by oath or affirmation before a neutral judici

2023See also State v. Lashley, 803 A.2d 139 , 142 14 consistent with Payton v. New York,” and that “[i]n Delaware, absent exigent circumstances, the police must obtain a search warrant before entering a home at anytime — day or night.”47 D.

2023Any other view would tend in actual practice to emasculate the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.222 220 Id. 221 502 F.2d 959, 961 (6th Cir. 1974); See also U.S. v. Quinney, 583 F.3d 891 , 894–95 (6th Cir. 2009). 222 Id. at 961 (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). 68 The Inevitable Discovery Exception is more often applied in non-home settings, where saturation searches are going on, or where routine or standardized procedures are involved.223 For example, in United States v. Bradley,224 the Third Circuit recognized that inventory searches of an impounded

2023Any other view would tend in actual practice to emasculate the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.222 220 Id. 221 502 F.2d 959, 961 (6th Cir. 1974); See also U.S. v. Quinney, 583 F.3d 891 , 894–95 (6th Cir. 2009). 222 Id. at 961 (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). 68 The Inevitable Discovery Exception is more often applied in non-home settings, where saturation searches are going on, or where routine or standardized procedures are involved.223 For example, in United States v. Bradley,224 the Third Circuit recognized that inventory searches of an impounded

2023Any other view would tend in actual practice to emasculate the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.222 220 Id. 221 502 F.2d 959, 961 (6th Cir. 1974); See also U.S. v. Quinney, 583 F.3d 891 , 894–95 (6th Cir. 2009). 222 Id. at 961 (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). 68 The Inevitable Discovery Exception is more often applied in non-home settings, where saturation searches are going on, or where routine or standardized procedures are involved.223 For example, in United States v. Bradley,224 the Third Circuit recognized that inventory searches of an impounded

2023It travels public thoroughfares where its occupants and its contents are in plain view.”); Opperman, 428 U.S. at 368 (“[o]ne has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and seldom serves as one’s residence or as the repository of personal effects.”) (citation omitted). 13 English liberty.”42 Consistent with this tradition, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that “searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.”43 In Mason v. State,44 Justice Holland, writing for this Court in 1987, detailed the “c

2023Any other view would tend in actual practice to emasculate the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.222 220 Id. 221 502 F.2d 959, 961 (6th Cir. 1974); See also U.S. v. Quinney, 583 F.3d 891 , 894–95 (6th Cir. 2009). 222 Id. at 961 (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). 68 The Inevitable Discovery Exception is more often applied in non-home settings, where saturation searches are going on, or where routine or standardized procedures are involved.223 For example, in United States v. Bradley,224 the Third Circuit recognized that inventory searches of an impounded

2023Any other view would tend in actual practice to emasculate the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.222 220 Id. 221 502 F.2d 959, 961 (6th Cir. 1974); See also U.S. v. Quinney, 583 F.3d 891 , 894–95 (6th Cir. 2009). 222 Id. at 961 (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). 68 The Inevitable Discovery Exception is more often applied in non-home settings, where saturation searches are going on, or where routine or standardized procedures are involved.223 For example, in United States v. Bradley,224 the Third Circuit recognized that inventory searches of an impounded

2023Although the court stated that it “seem[ed] probable that the police would have discovered the cocaine in an inventory search,” the Third Circuit, nevertheless, remanded the case because “more information on police procedures — including protocols for the conduct of an inventory search and the scope of an officer’s discretion during such a search — is likely needed before making a final determination on inevitable discovery.”226 In Martin v. State, this Court determined that a combination of the possibility of a warrant, a hotel manager saying he would have given permission to search the room,

2023Although the court stated that it “seem[ed] probable that the police would have discovered the cocaine in an inventory search,” the Third Circuit, nevertheless, remanded the case because “more information on police procedures — including protocols for the conduct of an inventory search and the scope of an officer’s discretion during such a search — is likely needed before making a final determination on inevitable discovery.”226 In Martin v. State, this Court determined that a combination of the possibility of a warrant, a hotel manager saying he would have given permission to search the room,

1981We hold that such inventory search, when made to safeguard property for the benefit of owner, police, and tow company, and not under pretext to gather evidence without a warrant, is reasonable and not violative of Fourth Amendment rights.” State v. Gwinn, Del.Supr., 301 A.2d 291, 293 (1972) (citations omitted).