Aaron v. State
| Decision Date | 15 March 1971 |
| Citation | 275 A.2d 791 |
| Parties | Sally H. AARON, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
Appeal from Superior Court in and for New Castle County.
Alfred J. Lindh and Richard Allen Paul to Taylor, Lindh, Paul & Abramo, Wilmington, for appellant.
Francis A. Reardon, Deputy Atty. Gen., Wilmington, for the State.
Before WOLCOTT, C. J., and CAREY and HERRMANN, JJ., sitting.
This is an appeal from a conviction of possession of a dangerous drug, to-wit, marijuana. Four points are made in appellant's behalf, viz.:
1. It was error to refuse to suppress as evidence the marijuana seized by the police.
2. It was error to instruct the jury with respect to 16 Del.C. § 4719.
3. It was error to permit the trial to be conducted by a judge other than the one who heard a motion to suppress the marijuana as evidence.
4. It was error not to exclude from evidence a statement made to the police by the appellant.
The facts of this incident are that two State Troopers were on routine patrol on Pike Creek Road at about 2:45 a.m. when they came across a 1967 Volkswagen with Pennsylvania license tags parked on the side of the road. The area in which the car was found is open and wooded and is known as a 'Lover's Lane'. This area had been the scene of two rapes and several incidents of assault and battery. It was also known as an area where people assembled to drink and occasionally smoke marijuana. All these facts were known to the Troopers at the time.
The Troopers stopped and approached the car. It was vacant and its windows were down and its sun roof open. By radio, the Troopers asked if the vehicle had been reported stolen. They then proceeded to try to learn the identity of the occupants. On each of the front and back seats was a lady's purse. On Trooper opened the glove compartment and found the registration of the car. The purse on the front seat was then opened and inside it was a burlap pouch with a drawstring. The pouch was open and by the beam of a flashlight there were seen four handrolled cigarettes which appeared to contain marijuana. This was later confirmed by laboratory analysis. The name of the purse owner, the appellant, was learned from a student I.D. card.
Thereupon, because of the nature of the area and the absence of the occupants of the car, two of whom were apparently female, the Troopers by radio requested the aid of a K--9 Trooper. Shortly thereafter, the K--9 Trooper arrived and also advised that the car had not been reported stolen.
Before the Troopers could commence a search of the area, the appellant, the owner of the car, and another young couple emerged from a nearby woods where they said they had been walking. The Troopers asked which one was the appellant. She identified herself and was then taken aside, advised as to her constitutional rights, and questioned concerning the contents of her purse, admitting the ownership of it and its contents.
On these facts, the appellant argues that the search was unlawful and that the fruits of that search must be suppressed. The judge hearing the motion to suppress the seized evidence refused to do so. The appellant was then tried, convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment which, however, was suspended and she was placed on probation. This appeal followed.
We consider first the argument that the seized marijuana should have been suppressed as evidence. It must be noted that the search conducted by the Troopers could not be a search incident to a lawful arrest since, at the time, they had no knowledge that any crime had been committed. Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964). The case, therefore, does not fall within the class of cases turning upon the reasonableness of a search made as an incident to a lawful arrest upon probable cause. In such case, the question is always whether the incidental search is reasonable and made with probable cause to believe that a search would unearth evidence relating to the crime involved. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970).
The search before us must be justified, if at all, strictly upon the basis of the circumstances under which it was made. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1967). These circumstances are that on routine patrol the Troopers found a vacant automobile along the side of the road at an early hour in the morning. The area was well known to them as the scene of violent crimes and as a 'Lover's Lane'. From a casual inspection of the interior of the car, it seemed apparent that at least...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Carolina v. Butler
...Bowling v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 176, 458 S.W.2d 639 (1970); State v. Young, 89 Wash.2d 613, 574 P.2d 1171 (1978). See also Aaron v. State, 275 A.2d 791 (Del.1971); State v. Nelson, Minn., 257 N.W.2d 356 (1977); Land v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 223, 176 S.E.2d 586 (1970) (reversing lower court......
-
State v. Gwinn
...Court has heretofore approved and applied the 'plain view' doctrine as an exception to the search warrant requirement. Aaron v. State, Del.Supr., 275 A.2d 791 (1971). We now approve the 'automobile inventory' rule, as hereinabove limited and proscribed, as an exception to the search warrant......
-
State v. Henderson
...58. 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). 59. State v. Moore, 187 A.2d 807, 810-811 (Del.Super.1963). 60. Aaron v. State, 275 A.2d 791 (Del.1971); Modesto v. State, 258 A.2d 287 (Del.Super. 61. 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 62. 392 U.S. at 19, 88 S.Ct. at 1......
-
State v. Wausnock
...that since the contraband was seized in the course of a lawful search, the 'fruits' of the search were not 'tainted'. Aaron v. State, Del.Supr., 275 A.2d 791 (1971). This conclusion includes not only the pipe found where a weapon was suspected, but also the cigarette which was then in 'plai......