IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
)
v. )
) ID No. 1407023965
)
DALE K. MCNEILL, )
a.k.a. CHARLES DESHIELDS, )
)
Defendant. )
Date Submitted: March 27, 2015
Date Decided: April 23, 2015
OPINION
Upon Defendant’s Motion to Suppress: DENIED.
Barzilai K. Axelrod, Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, DE, Attorney for the
State.
Joseph M. Leager, Jr., Esquire, Wilmington, DE, Attorney for the Defendant.
Jurden, P.J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is the defendant’s Motion to Suppress. For the reasons that
follow, the defendant’s motion is DENIED.
II. FACTS
Dale K. McNeill a.k.a. Charles Deshields (“Defendant”) was arrested
following an administrative search of his motel room. At the time of the search,
the defendant was serving Level II probation under the supervision of the
Delaware Department of Correction as a result of a 2013 conviction. As part of the
defendant’s “zero tolerance” probation conditions, he was required to report any
change of residence within 72 hours to his supervising probation officer. The
address of record that the defendant provided to Probation was The Harriet
Tubman Safe House in Wilmington, Delaware.
On July 28, 2014, Senior Probation Officer William DuPont (“DuPont”),
who is assigned to Operation Safe Streets (“Safe Streets”), a joint task force of
New Castle County Police and Probation and Parole Officers, learned that the
defendant was staying at The Dutch Inn Motel (“Dutch Inn”) in New Castle
County, Delaware. The guest registration for the Dutch Inn recorded that the
defendant was staying there for seven days. The defendant was registered to check
into Room 51 on July 22, 2014, and check-out on July 25, 2015. The defendant
was also registered to check into Room 51 on July 25, 2014, and check-out on July
2
26, 2014. Finally, the defendant was registered to check into Room 11 on July 26,
2014, and check-out on July 29, 2014.
On July 29, 2014, a Safe Streets team went to the Dutch Inn with the
purpose of ascertaining if the defendant was residing there. The Safe Streets team
consisted of DuPont, Senior Probation Officer Richard Negley, Detective Thomas
Bruhn of the New Castle County Police Department (“NCCPD”), and Officer Peter
Stewart of the NCCPD. 1
DuPont testified that, through his training and experience, he is aware that
probationers often secure a motel room or maintain a separate residence than the
residence provided to Probation in an effort to conceal illegal activities from
Probation. DuPont also testified that probationers will often change motel rooms
several times to further conceal any illegal activities.
DuPont and Detective Bruhn testified that the Dutch Inn is located in a well-
known, high crime area. The Safe Streets team knew that the defendant had an
extensive criminal record, including drug related crimes and violent arrests. When
the officers arrived at the Dutch Inn on July 29, the officers noticed a rental vehicle
parked in front of the defendant’s room. DuPont testified that probationers often
use rental vehicles in an effort to conceal their activities from Probation.
1
DuPont and Detective Bruhn testified at the suppression hearing. Detective Bruhn testified that
Safe Streets is designed to deal with some of the worst violent and repeat offenders, and one of
his primary responsibilities as a member of Safe Streets and sworn officer of the NCCPD is to
provide security and assist the Probation and Parole Officers.
3
At approximately 9:19 a.m., DuPont knocked on the door to Room 11. The
defendant asked, “who is it?” DuPont identified himself as a Probation and Parole
Safe Streets Officer and the defendant responded, “what do you want?” DuPont
testified that he could see into Room 11 through a small four to six inch gap
between the window and the curtain. DuPont told the defendant he wanted to talk,
and the defendant said “okay.” At this point, DuPont could still see the defendant
standing inside the room and it appeared as if the defendant was unsure whether to
open the door. The defendant then closed the curtains and the officers were no
longer able to see the defendant. Upon further knocking, the defendant indicated
that he was in the shower and said, “hold on, I have to get dressed.”
Approximately one or two minutes later, after additional knocking, the
defendant opened the door. DuPont did not use a key or otherwise force entry.
Although the defendant indicated he could not answer the door immediately
because he needed to get dressed, the defendant was fully naked when he let the
officers into the room. Detective Bruhn did a protective sweep of the motel room
to check if anyone else was in the room and did not find anyone. DuPont testified
that immediately upon making contact with the defendant he observed that the
defendant’s clothes were readily accessible, he was not wet from a shower, and the
bathroom did not appear to be wet. The defendant put on a pair of boxer shorts
that he was holding in his hands.
4
DuPont asked the defendant why he was renting the room. The defendant
told DuPont he was using the motel room for “relations with a companion.”
DuPont testified that he did not notice any female items in the room. DuPont then
asked if the defendant had contacted Probation to report his change of address.
According to DuPont, the defendant began to stutter and said, “I don’t stay here
like that.” During this exchange, the defendant attempted to move closer to the
bed and started to rifle through clothes on the bed. DuPont directed the defendant
not to touch anything or make any movements.
DuPont testified that because of the defendant’s behavior he was concerned
for officer safety and did not want the defendant to stand. According to DuPont,
the only place in the small motel room available to sit was on the bed or a chair.
DuPont testified that based on his training and experience the chair provided less
places to hide a weapon in comparison to the bed. Prior to asking the defendant to
sit in the chair, Detective Bruhn checked the seat for the presence of weapons. He
found no weapons under the seat cushion, but upon leaning the chair forward to
look underneath, Detective Bruhn saw that the black mesh on the bottom of the
chair had a large hole ripped in it. Detective Bruhn saw a log of heroin in that
hole. The officers handcuffed the defendant and DuPont confirmed that Detective
Bruhn had observed heroin.
5
DuPont obtained permission from Probation Supervisor Carlo Pini to
conduct an administrative search of Room 11 and the rental vehicle that was
parked outside. The search revealed additional drugs in Room 11 and in the rental
vehicle.
III. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
The defendant moves to suppress all evidence seized following the search of
his motel room and rental vehicle. The defendant argues that the probation officers
lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an administrative search for illegal
contraband because the officers knew only that the defendant was on probation and
had rented a room at the Dutch Inn. The defendant maintains that there were no
exigent circumstances and the probation officers did not complete the required pre-
search preparation checklist before going to the Dutch Inn.
In opposition, the State argues that the probation officers were permitted to
knock on the defendant’s motel room door and ask the defendant about his use of
the Dutch Inn as a residence. Once lawfully in the defendant’s motel room, the
State argues that based on the defendant’s behavior, the officers were permitted to
do a protective search of the chair for weapons. The State maintains that the
administrative search began after the drugs were observed in plain view and the
defendant was handcuffed.
6
The State further argues that even if the administrative search was invalid,
the contraband found in the defendant’s motel room and rental vehicle “inevitably
would have been discovered by lawful means” because the defendant was going to
be arrested for violation of probation.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
On a motion to suppress evidence in a warrantless search or seizure, the
State bears the burden of proof to establish that the challenged police conduct
comported with the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the
Delaware Constitution, and Delaware statutory law. 2 The burden of proof on a
motion to suppress is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. 3
V. DISCUSSION
The Constitutions of the United States and the State of Delaware protect
individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. 4 Individuals on probation,
however, “do not enjoy the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled.”5 A
probationer’s home is protected from unreasonable searches, but the “unique
nature of probationary supervision justifies a departure from the usual warrant and
2
Hunter v. State, 783 A.2d 558, 560 (Del. 2001).
3
State v. Abel, 2011 WL 5221276, at *2 (Del. Super. 2011), aff’d, 68 A.3d 1228 (Del. 2012), as
amended (Jan. 22, 2013).
4
U.S. CONST. amend IV, XIV; DEL. CONST. art. I, § 6.
5
McAllister v. State, 807 A.2d 1119, 1124 (Del. 2002) (quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S.
868, 874 (1987)).
7
probable cause requirements for searches.” 6 The Delaware Supreme Court has
explained that:
[A] warrantless administrative search of a probationer’s home requires
the probation officer have a reasonable suspicion for the search.
Reasonable suspicion exists where the totality of the circumstances’
indicates that the officer had a particularized and objective basis for
suspecting legal wrongdoing. 7
11 Del. C. § 4321(d) 8 authorizes Probation and Parole officers to effect
searches of probationers in accordance with Department of Correction (“DOC”)
regulations. 9 Pursuant to that authority, the DOC has adopted regulations
governing warrantless searches and arrests of probationers. 10 Under Probation and
Parole Procedure 7.19 (“Procedure 7.19”):
[P]robation officers may detain any positively identified probationer
to determine the nature of his activity and whether he is complying
with the conditions of probation. A detention means temporarily
depriving a person of his freedom to depart the area based on
reasonable suspicion.11
Probation officers are not required to fulfill each technical aspect of the
DOC regulations. 12 “A probation officer must have a reasonable suspicion or
6
Jacklin v. State, 2011 WL 809684, at *2 (Del. 2011) (TABLE).
7
Id. (internal quotations omitted).
8
11 Del. C. § 4321(d) (“Probation and parole officers shall exercise the same powers as
constables under the laws of this State and may conduct searches of individuals under probation
and parole supervision in accordance with Department procedures while in the performance of
the lawful duties of their employment . . . .”).
9
McAllister, 807 A.2d at 1123.
10
Jacklin, 2011 WL 809684, at *2.
11
Murray v. State, 45 A.3d 670, 678 (Del. 2012), as corrected (July 10, 2012).
12
Fuller v. State, 844 A.2d 290, 292 (Del. 2004).
8
reasonable grounds to justify an administrative search of a residence or car.” 13 The
Delaware Supreme Court considers probation officers to have acted reasonably so
long as they substantially comply with the DOC regulations.14 According to the
Delaware Supreme Court:
Generally, the following factors should be considered when deciding
whether to search: [1] The Officer has knowledge or sufficient reason
to believe [that] the offender possesses contraband; [2] The Officer
has knowledge or sufficient reason to believe [that] the offender is in
violation of probation or parole; [3] There is information from a
reliable informant indicating [that] the offender possesses contraband
or is violating the law; [4] The information from the informant is
corroborated; [5] Approval for the search has been obtained from a
Supervisor.15
In the present case, on July 29, 2014, the probation officers had a reasonable
belief that the defendant was in violation of probation because the defendant was
registered as a guest at the Dutch Inn for seven days and did not update his address
to Probation. The probation officers also knew: (1) the defendant had a criminal
history; (2) the Dutch Inn is located in a high drug and high crime area; (3) it is
common for probationers to conceal a secondary residence from Probation to carry
out illegal activities; (4) the defendant was staying at the Dutch Inn for seven days;
(5) it is common for probationers to switch motel rooms multiple times to conceal
illegal activities from Probation; (6) the defendant switched motel rooms three
13
Murray, 45 A.3d at 678.
14
Id.
15
Sierra v. State, 958 A.2d 825, 829 (Del. 2008) (quoting Delaware Department of Correction
Bureau of Community Corrections Probation and Parole Procedure No. 7 .19).
9
times during the seven day time period; (7) it is common for probationers to use a
rental vehicle to conceal illegal activities from Probation; and (8) the defendant
had a rental vehicle.
Once the probation officers were lawfully permitted to enter the defendant’s
motel room, the defendant told the probation officers that he was renting the room
for “relations with a companion,” but there was no one else in the room or any
indication that another person had been there. During this conversation, the
probation officers determined that the defendant lied about the reason for his delay
in opening the door because the defendant’s clothes were readily accessible but he
was still naked, he was not wet from a shower, and the bathroom did not appear to
be wet from a shower. Additionally, the defendant was nervous and rifling
through his clothes on the bed. As noted above, the probation officers were
concerned for officer safety and wanted the defendant to sit in the chair and not
stand next to the bed. At this point, the probation officers conducted a limited
protective search of the area within arm’s reach of the chair and found drugs in
plain view.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds that a protective search of the
chair for weapons was justified for officer safety. Once the defendant was
handcuffed, the probation officers obtained approval from a supervisor to conduct
an administrative search of Room 11 and the rental vehicle.
10
The following pre-search considerations were present: (1) the officer had
knowledge or sufficient reason to believe that the offender possessed contraband;
(2) the officer had knowledge or sufficient reason to believe that the offender was
in violation of probation or parole; and (3) approval for the search was obtained
from a supervisor. 16 The Court finds that the probation officers had “reasonable
suspicion” for the administrative search and substantially complied with the DOC
regulations.
Moreover, pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4334(b), 17 probation officers have
statutory authority to arrest probationers for a violation of any condition of
probation. Thus, on July 28, 2014, when the probation officers learned that the
defendant was registered as a guest at the Dutch Inn from July 22 to July 29, 2014,
and verified that the defendant had not updated his address, 11 Del. C. § 4334(b)
authorized the probation officers to arrest the defendant without a warrant because
the defendant violated the conditions of his probation.
16
The remaining two pre-search considerations are irrelevant in the instant case because they
concern whether a probation officer received corroborated information from an informant.
17
11 Del. C. § 4334(b) (“The Commissioner, or any probation officer, when in the
Commissioner’s or probation officer’s judgment there has been a violation of any condition of
probation or suspension of sentence, may arrest such probationer without a warrant . . . .”);
Jacklin, 2011 WL 809684, at *3.
11
VI. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Jan R. Jurden, President Judge
12
State of Delaware v. McNeill.
Combined Opinion