Del. High Court Blocks 'Unlawful' Search in Parole Violation Proceeding
A three-judge panel of the high court Thursday overturned a lower court's ruling and faulted the officers for acting on a tip from an informant without taking any steps to verify the information or assess the informant's credibility.
February 22, 2019 at 04:01 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
The Delaware Supreme Court held this week that a convicted felon could not be resentenced for violating his parole, after probation officers made “no attempt” to comply with basic rules governing a search of his home.
A three-judge panel of the high court Thursday overturned a lower court's ruling and faulted the officers for acting on a tip from an informant without taking any steps to verify the information or assess the informant's credibility.
The search, which turned up more than 300 bags of heroin, a loaded gun and other drugs and paraphernalia, could not be used in new criminal case against the man, Kevin A. Walker, but a Superior Court judge allowed the evidence into separate proceedings, which found that Walker had violated the terms of his parole for a felony conviction of driving under the influence.
According to the opinion, officers received a tip in 2017 that Walker had heroin in his home and planned to distribute it. During the search, they found 252 bags of heroin, drug paraphernalia and a locked safe containing a loaded 9mm and five grams of marijuana. When correctional officers searched Walker at the Sussex County Correctional Institution, they discovered 86 more bags of heroin and nine bags of crack cocaine hidden in Walker's rectum, court documents said.
Under Delaware law, officers are required to assess the consistency of informants' information, as well as the reliability of the informants and any reasons they might have for supplying the information. The Superior Court found that there was a lack of detail concerning the tip and that no effort was made to corroborate the information, but held that exclusion did not apply to the violation of parole proceedings.
In a seven-page opinion, Justice James T. Vaughn Jr. accepted the court's finding regarding the search and said that the evidence should have been barred across the board.
“Because there was no attempt to comply with basic aspects of the probation procedure, we think that the proper and orderly administration of justice calls for suppression,” Vaughn wrote in a seven-page opinion.
A spokesman for the Delaware Department of Justice, which argued the appeal, did not respond Friday to a request for comment.
An attorney for Walker was not immediately available to comment.
The case was captioned Walker v. State.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatham, Finnegan Win $115M Muscular Dystrophy Drug Patent Verdict for Counterclaimant
2 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute read3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
- 2Many Southeast Law Firms Planned New, Smaller Offices in 2024
- 3On the Move and After Hours: Goldberg Segalla, Faegre Drinker, Pashman Stein
- 4Recent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
- 5‘Not A Kindergarten Teacher’: Judge Blasts Keller Postman, Jenner & Block, in Mass Arb Dispute
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250