Pierson v. State
| Decision Date | 04 October 1973 |
| Parties | Joe Louis PIERSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Upon appeal from Superior Court.
Karl Haller, Asst. Public Defender, Georgetown, for defendant below, appellant.
H. Newton White, Deputy Atty. Gen., Georgetown, for plaintiff below, appellee.
Defendant appeals from a conviction for burglary in the fourth degree.
The critical question, as we view the case, concerns the ruling of the Court below on defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence; * specifically, the Court ruled that defendant did not have standing to object to the search in which the evidence was seized.
Defendant intermittently lived at a house leased by a female friend; he was neither the owner of the property nor a tenant (in a formal sense). At the time of his arrest he had been so residing for a period approximating one month. During the search, which was made pursuant to a warrant while defendant was in custody, the police found a sack which contained burglary tools and these were introduced into evidence over defendant's objection. The Superior Court ruled that because defendant was neither owner nor tenant, he lacked standing to question the legality of the search. We disagree.
The United States Supreme Court in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), held that '. . . anyone legitimately on (the) premises where a search occurs may challenge its legality by way of a motion to suppress, when its fruits are proposed to be used against him.' That precise ruling was followed by the Superior Court in the earlier case of State v. Manetti, Del.Super., 189 A.2d 426 (1963). Thus, it is clear that defendant need not have been an owner or tenant of the premises to have standing to object to the search and seizure.
For this reason the case must be remanded, but it does not follow that the conviction must be set aside. What is called for at this time is a determination by the Superior Court of defendant's motion. Accordingly, the case will be remanded for the purpose of a suppression hearing and a ruling on defendant's motion. The Court is authorized to make such additional rulings as it deems appropriate in light of its findings on the motion.
In the supplemental brief filed Pro se defendant says that he was arrested on December 21, 1971 and that he requested a preliminary hearing which was never held. The indictment was filed on March 6, 1972. Superior Court Criminal Rule 5, Del.C.Ann., requires that an arrested person be taken 'without unreasonable delay' before a Justice of the Peace who is required to advise the arrested person as to certain matters, including his right to a preliminary hearing. While an indictment eliminates the need for such hearing, Jenkins v. State, supra, the apparent delay here of some seventy-five days without either hearing or indictment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Strickland
...See Walker v. Peppersack, 316 F.2d 119 (4th Cir. 1963); Roberson v. United States, 165 F.2d 752 (6th Cir. 1948); 4 Pierson v. State, 311 A.2d 854 (Del.1973). See also United States v. Harwood, 470 F.2d 322 (10th Cir. 1972); Creasy v. Leake, 422 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1970); United States v. Migu......
-
Righter v. State
...knock and announce element of the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. Id.29 Baker, 522 A.2d at 646.30 Id. at 647.31 Del.Supr., 311 A.2d 854 (1973).32 Del.Supr., 591 A.2d 158 (1991).33 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960) (holding that "anyone legitimately on [the] pre......
-
Pierson v. State
...into evidence; defendant's standing to seek suppression was established after conviction in an appeal to this Court. Pierson v. State, Del.Supr., 311 A.2d 854 (1973). Following a post-remand hearing, the Superior Court concluded that the '. . . affidavit when read as a whole appears suffici......
-
State v. Rodriguez, Criminal Action No. IN-05-03-0927 (DE 6/30/2005)
...704 A.2d 262, 265 (Del. 1997) (quoting Rakas v. Illinois, Supra, 493 U.S. at 493, n. 12, 99 S.Ct. at 430, n. 12).. 12. Pierson v. State, 311 A.2d 854, 855 (Del. 1973). 13. State v. Hedley, 593 A.2d 576, 579 (Del.Super. 1990). 14. Hanna v. State, 591 at 162. 15. State v. Miller, 449 A.2d 106......