Free Reply Brief/Memorandum - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cr—OOO36—JJF Document 44-2 Filed O9/28/2005 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of`4
Vléstlaw
Nut Reported in F.Supp.2d Page I
Not Reported in F.Su·pp.2d, 2002 WL l268£l51 (D.DeI.]
(Cite as: 2002 WL t26805l {D.DeL))
Onlythe Westlaw citation is currently available. Cassidy ("Cassidy"} that the incident oocurred in or
around 2·¤id·t and Market Streets in Wilmington.
Delaware. Bell [FNS] refused to tell Cassidy
United States District Coun. D. Delaware. anything other than the location of the incident The
U`NI'I`ED STATES OF AMERICA. Plaintliif clothing given to Cassidy did not have any bullet
v. hclcs in it. tlcspile BeII's wounds.
Michael BELL. Defendant.
No. CRIM..—\.t12-02-SLR. FN2. Ciritclia has been a Wilmington
police oITicer since October 6. H86 and
May 112002. assigned Io IIIB Criminal Investigation
Division since May I 1. 1999. {DJ. lll)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
FNS. Acoortling to the nflidavit, Bell told
ROBIl*~lSON..I. the ofhcer "l'm not going to tell you-ii."
[D.I.1B]
I. INTRODUCTION
Bonita Bell told Houck that her sen called her Item
*1 Defendant Michael Bell ("Bell") has filed a his grand.rnothet*s house at IIS Douglas Lane.
motion to suppress evidence [FNI] seized Ceeilton, Maryland and explained his injuries.
_ pursuant to a search warrant ol' his residence. Bonita Bell drove and picked up her son from the
(D.l.2··l) The United States of America Maryland home. She indicated to Hauck that her
("g¤vemmcnt") has tiled its opposition. (D.l.2$) son would not tell her what had happened. Bell did
Forthe reasons t.h.nl fellow. the motion is denied. tell het, according to Ciritclla, that he had driven
himself Horn 24th and Market Streets to his
F`N|. A lircarrn and ammunition were grandmotlteis house.
scixed Fmrn the home.
Ciriteila believed tha: it was necessary lo collect as
Il. BACKGROUND evidence the clothing Bell was wearing at the time
of the incident, i.e.. pants, Ltndcrwoar and socks.
The aflidavit of probable cause tiled in suppon ot since Lltc clothing retrieved at the Hospital did not
the seanch warrant of Bells residence sm Fonh the have any bullet holcs in them, Ciritella concluded
following: Un November 28. 200I. Detective John lhat Bell had changed clothes or was lying about the
Ciritella ("Cirite|l.a"] [FN2] responded to the facts provided. Also. il was unclear whether Bell
Wilmington Police Detective Division on an had stopped at his home. 405 Barley Drive.
Assault First investigation. (D.|.l$. Allidaviti The Newark. Delaware to change clotlting and then
victim, Bell. was shot in the right calf. genitalarea drove to Cccilton, Maryland. Ciritella found it
and [eh buttocks. The victim's mother. Bonita Bell. "sus.piei¤us" that Bell drove past two Delaware
drove him to Christiana Hospital. Another hospitals, Wilmington Hospital and Christiana
detective, Ralph Hauiclt ["l·lauclt"}. also responded Hospital, before leaving Lhe state.
to Christiana Hospital to interview Bell to obtain
infomation regarding a possible suspect and the Ciritelia further included Belts criminal history in
location of the incident. llauck lenmtd that Bell his affidavit. Spccilically. in I991 Bell pleaded
indicated Ito W`ll.1'nington police oflicer Robert guilty to Trafficking Cocaine and as such he was
0 Elms T11omson·’\\·'est. No Claim to Drig. LLS. Govt. Works.
http:r’i`print.\vcatlaw.eotTu'deIivery.htrnl?dest=-arp&format=I-lTl\··{1.Er&*.dataid=A[l05530000... 09.·'2’Z·'.·'2005

Case 1.05-cr—OOO36—JJF Document 44-2 Fnled O9/28/2005 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 ni'4
Nui Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 2
Nut Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL IZGBDSI [D.Del.}
{Che ss: 2002 WL l2.6805l [D.I)cl.]]
prohibited from possessing a Hreurm. On May 18. IOSS {Bd Cir.19931. instead, the Coun concluded
200l, Bell was l-l'l'¢5(¢d by Delaware Stu: Police the reviewing coun should afford 'grea: deferem:e"
while in possession ¤f`a9rnm l¤arLd,gLn1. tu the issuing ¤'F|'vct1’s dcwnninalinn and should
avoid 'innerpredng ¤l'|`ldnvl1[$] in n hyper-lbclminal,
Based an his training and experience, Clritelln rather umn ¤ cammnnscnse rnanner." ld'. In SD
averred that lhe "gunshnl wounds In Ihc genital doing, Ihe reviewing cuurt cmmnes itself tc the
area., are allen self inflicted due tn an acclclcnral I'ac|s than were helm: thc issuing ofllucr, " 'i.c.. thc
discharge while carrying the handgun in lhc I'rcm1 aI`l'»d¤vi't. and [dues] nut consider infonnaliun from
waistband erea." (DJ. IS 1 [0} Based on this odwr portions of the recnrtl." ' United Nuns.: v.
inf0rmnl[c¤1., Cirhella sought u warren! lu search Hodge. 246 F.3d 30I, 305 (Bd Cl1·.200l}. qncring
BcII's Newark hmm. June:. BI I055. When rcsolvlng qucsrinnehlc GEMS.
the preference accorded warrarma should prevail.
lll. DISCUSSION Janes, 944 F2d at 1055.
Bell asserts there was no probable cause lu support Murtnvcr. direct evidence linking the place tc bc
E uancc nf Ihe search warrant and tha! the cvidnncc searched with a crime: is :101 required for a warrant
seized and statements made as n result 0I' the lu issue. ld al I056. Ralher. "pmbahlc cause can
warrant vlolale his Fourth Amendmcru rights and be, und nflcrl ls. Inferred by 'cornsidzring lh: rypc ul
rnusr be suppressed. [D.l.2·l) Spcclhcally. Bell crhnc, 1.1+: nature of the items sought. lhs: suspccfs
contends rh: mmmenm in the afmlavir indicnrlng nppnnunizy for cmmtmmz and normal inferences
that the pnllue needed tn search lhc residence to about wher: ¤ criminal rnighl hide slulcn pmpcrty."
assist the investigation ima the assault of Bell were Id. Kcimllun umiltedl.
untrue. Inslead. Bell argues Ihe police wanted to
search th: residence fur evidence uf any crimes Bel] Applying this suncinrcl to lhc instant Facts. thc court
might have committed. Further. Bell argues me funds that the issuing ufllvcr had a subslxnlial basis
ofhuem lacked any pmbable cause to helicvr: TMI f`¤r lh: probable cause determination. Flm. there is
evidence related to thc shooting would be fcund at direct cvlnlmm that the gunshot wounds were ellher
his residence. The gnvemmenl asserts I.l1.al Lmdcr a infllclud by another. wnstlrutlng assault., ur by Bel]
wtality nl' the circumstances analysls, Iffimm v. himself. With regard In the Ia11e:r, as an individual
Gum?. 462 U.S. 2|3, 238 (WSI), Ihcr: was with u criminal record, any possession by Bell uf a
sufl`»:ienti.¤fun11ali¤n prhstntcdtnthe justin: ofthe 'Grearrn would be n violation of slate and ftdéml
peauemrendcrnmndingcfpmbahlccnusc. law. 11 Del. C, 14-18{ls], 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(I}.
92·l{8}(2). Moreover. the cluthes wom at the time cf
*2 In Umar, Ihr: United States Supreme Cnurl lh: injuries might suggest where the hullenjs)
adapted n "t¤|aIity<:f·rhe-circun1.$1an:¢s ¤naI)··sis" cnlcred and existed Ihereby hutrressing either
grr probable cause delvnninatluns. According tc the potential criminal 0l'fcrL5c.
Gl-ITL
[r]I•e mk uf the issuing magistrate is simply no Second, since Bell arrived B1 Christiana Hospital in
make a praclical. summon-scnsc dcclslcn clothes free of huller holes ur blood stains, a normal
whether, given all the circumstances set forth ln inference is Ihat he changrd from lh: clothes he had
the aflidavit before him. including nh: "vcra¤:i:y" been wearing su nh: time uf me shouting imo uw
and "basls of knuwl¤d_gc" ¤f persons supplying clclhw warn an rh: hmpitnj. Sinn: nlm lnnideau
hearsay Enfmmarlcn, there is A fair probability occurred Ln Wilmington and. Bell Llms drove tn his
tha! contraband ur evidence cf n crime will lx gandrnmhefs house in Maryland. he likely passed
found ln aparricular place. the area nr his residence in Newark. Delaware en
fd al 238. The standard uf review of an issuing mute. (l}.E.2$. Exs. 1. & 2 [maps uf Newark,
magls¤·une‘s probable DSILISC is not de num. fd ax Delaware area and Ceciltcm, Maryland) A normal
236; accom:} Unin.-d Srnmr v. Jaws. 994 F.2d 10SI, inference is that Bell stopped by his Ncwavk hum:.
0 2005 `I`h¤ms¤n·'WmL Nu Claim ID Orig. U5. G¤\·1. Works.
Imp:Hprint.wes:}ew.cnmideIEvery.hunl'?dcs1=u1p&1‘orma1=l-[TMLE&daLaid=ADD5SSUODOO. 09f2?!2005

Case 1 .05-cr—OOO36—JJF Document 44-2 Fnled O9/28/2005 Page 3 of 3
Page 4 cl`4
Nm Repomed in I".Supp.2d P¤8¢3
Nm Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2uDz WL I268u5I {D.DeI..}
(Cllr: as: 2002 WL 116805l {I1.DeI.]]
changed into new elclhu and then dmve tu automobiles Completely lacking nf information from
Ccciltan, Aocnrdingly, n search nf his residence was which the judicial uftiocr cnuld find probable cause
suppcrwdby pmhable cause. tu believe Lhere was evidence related In the victim';
dmh inside the vehicles. The Coun umcludzd mar
*3 Even assuming that Il subslautial basis for exclusion ¤I' Lhe evidence was the proper remedy
finding probable cause was Lacking, lhe coun Ends Lmder Ihe Delaware Cnnsdtution and reftlscd In
cvidtmc obtained lhrnugh lhs search would be recognize the good fuilh txucplion I0 the
admissible Lmdcr the good faith exception in the exclusiunary rule announced En Lam. 468 U.S. 897.
Htclmimmy rule. Unim! Stores nn Leon. 46E U.S.
897 (1984). Awarding In the Cmm cf Appeals fur The cwr! Finds Dnsmzy Faclually and legally
lh: Third Circuit. inappositc. The Dorxey victim was found shot In lh:
[r]he guod faith exception instructs 1.['u1l head md deceased. in his mum. which wes in Ihr
suppression nl' evidence "is inappruprinmc when huilding owned by Lhe defendant. Dorsey an
an officer executes a Ruth in objectively 808-809. The defendant gave smlemenls IO lhe
reasonable reliance nn a w¤rr8ll1's B.I1Ih.0G’iI}'. The police regardhgg his auernpls tc ccnlact the vimim
tut fur whether the good faith exception applies and he admltlnd entering the vklinfa apartrnent
is whelher a reasonably well trained 0I`|'¤c:r would wilhoul permiwiom. \\·"hi!¤ the police executed a
have known that th: semth was illegal despite Ihe warrant tu search the apartment building, lhey
magistrate |judg:'s] aulhurizaxicnf The mere applied for another warrant In search Ihe
EUHBIICB 0fa warrant typically summa In pnwe de‘I'endam*s vehicles, which were parked on lh:
lhs! an ¤f'E0cr ¤0||l1|1¢Tld a march in good faith street. This second warrant was facially invalid
and jusliflcs application uf tht gmd faith because lherc was nn evidence linking lh: vehicles
emepnim. to the crtme.
United States v. Hmfge, 246 F.3d at 307 [FN4]
[ehatiunsmnhtedl. Cnnversely. me already detailed, there is n nexus
between the potential crimes and BcI1's residence.
FN4. The euun idemifred Ibm sinuaxiuns The Fac: than nh: Delaware Supmcmc Coun applied
when an uffmefa reiiance cn a warrant differenl legal standards. i.•:.. the "I`0L¤‘<>0r‘rL¢rs" mst
would nm be reasonable: 1) where issuing for probable cause and rejected Ihc Lean good faith
cmu: issued the warrant upon reliance on exception IU the excluslmary rule, is nnl mntrnlling
a deliberately cr recklessly false aH`rdavil; in lhis court; inslvad. we an hound by Lean and hs
2} when Ihe issuing 0H'¤cer abandoned prvgrfqr.
his·'I1er judicial mle and did nul perform
duties in a neutral and dsuched manneq 3] IV. CONCLUSION
when Ibn warrant was based an an affidavit
so Lacking prchoble cause as to make any Fur the reasons suited. at Wilmingmn this mh day
belief in in completely unreasonable; or 4] of I\··I¤y.2¤¤2;
when the warrant was facially deI'vci•:m: in
that it did not panicuiarize lhe place to be IT IS ORDERED that deI`end¤nl's motion tb
searched ur things lu he seized. Id. al 308. suppnzasisdenind. (D.I.l.2]
The coun Ends none uf lhasa situations
prcscntal bar. Nm Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2001 WL IMDDSI
(D.Dcl.}
As a final num, Bell argues Dorsey v. Srare. T6]
A.2d SUT (Dd.2000) is "s1.rikingly similar" and END OF U·OCUMI£N1`
mandates suppn:-ssinn ol' the evidence an bar.
(D.I.24] In Dorsey. lh: Delaware Supreme Coun
I`uur1d Lhe wmrnnt used 10 search thc defendant';
O 2005 'l'I|umsun.“West. No Claim to Orig. LL5. Govt. Warts.
h1:rp:f.·'p1·i¤:.wesLlaw.¤0nm'de|jver3*.htmI?dcs1=atp&f¤m1at=HTMLE&.dataid=A0O5$80UDU... U9f2Z·'.·'2005