Opinion
No. 446, 2001
Submitted: June 26, 2002
Decided: September 18, 2002
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr.A. Nos. IN-00-01-0067 through 0071
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
JAMES A. WILSON Defendant Below, Appellant v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 446, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: June 26, 2002 Decided: September 18, 2002
Before WALSH, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
Carolyn Berger, Justice:
ORDER
This 18th day of September, 2002, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that:
1) James A. Wilson appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of trafficking in cocaine and related offenses. Wilson argues that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress because: (i) he had standing to contest the search of another person's home; (ii) the person who consented to the search did not have authority to do so; (iii) the search exceeded the scope of the consent; (iv) the search exceeded the scope of a lawful search pursuant to arrest; and (v) the search was not permissible under the protective sweep doctrine.
2) On December 9, 1999, Dover City Police Officers were trying to find Wilson, who was wanted on multiple drug charges. Okeman Davis, the girlfriend of another man arrested on drug charges, knew Wilson and knew that the police were looking for him. Wilson contacted Davis from a hotel in Wilmington, asking her to pick him up and move his belongings back to Davis's house. Davis complied and then called the police to tell them that Wilson was at her home in Brookmont Farms, Delaware.
3) Davis executed a consent to search form authorizing the police to forcibly enter her home and search it. That afternoon, a team of police officers broke through the front door of Davis's home, found Wilson inside, and arrested him. The officers checked every room of the house to be sure no one else was present. One officer, while walking through the living area, saw what appeared to be marijuana and cocaine on a coffee table together with rolling papers and a large amount of cash. Those items were spread around the coffee table next to an opened brief case, which belonged to Wilson.
4) Both the Delaware and United States Constitutions protect against unreasonable searches and seizures of persons or property. But before a person may challenge the validity of a search or seizure that person must demonstrate "a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place." This Court has held that an overnight guest, for example, has a reasonable expectation of privacy and, therefore, has standing to contest the search of the host's home.
Del. Const. Art. I, § 6; United States Const. Amend. IV. 2
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978).
Hanna v. State, 591 A.2d 158 (Del. 1991).
5) Wilson argues that he had standing to contest the search of Davis's home because: (i) he was alone in the house and barefoot when the police entered; and (ii) as Davis described it, he had just "move[d] his belongings back to her house." The trial court concluded that these facts were not enough to establish that Wilson either was an overnight guest or for other reasons had a reasonable expectation of privacy. We agree.
The fact that Wilson was alone in Davis's home in the afternoon, wearing no shoes, establishes only that he was a casual guest. As such, he has no standing to contest the validity of the search. The trial court, therefore, was correct in denying Wilson's motion to suppress evidence.
6) Since we conclude that Wilson lacked standing to contest the search, we need not reach Wilson's other arguments.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.