State v. Lloyd
| Decision Date | 18 July 1988 |
| Citation | 552 A.2d 498 |
| Parties | STATE of Delaware v. Michael LLOYD, Defendant. . Submitted: |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
Before the Court for decision is a motion by Michael Lloyd seeking return of his property seized by the police when executing a search warrant. Michael Lloyd was indicted on November 12, 1986 for the September 20, 1986 murder of Jane Marie Prichard. Two search warrants were issued and executed at defendant's residence. 1 These warrants were issued by Justice of the Peace Court. Pursuant to these warrants, evidence was seized including the subject matter of this motion: Bibles, classical literature, novels, factual books, and other written materials.
Subsequent to defendant's indictment, these materials became the subject matter of a motion to suppress evidence. A hearing on that motion was held and the motion was denied. On August 12, 1987 the State entered a nolle prosequi with regard to the charges pending against defendant. On June 17, 1988 defendant filed his "motion for return of property".
The Court ascertained that the State opposes this motion and scheduled an office conference to discuss the matter. At that conference (unreported) the State indicated that it is still investigating this case and wishes to retain the items seized to further that investigation. It was suggested that evidence may be found within the items seized. The State further contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to order the relief sought as there is no pending criminal charge; and, the search warrants were issued out of a Justice of the Peace Court.
I am satisfied that this Court has jurisdiction over the evidence seized in a case that has proceeded to indictment both under statutory law and incident to its common law powers to resolve the criminal case in its entirety. Title 11, Chapter 23 of the Delaware Code sets out the law governing search and seizure in this State. In that chapter it is specifically set forth what disposition may be made of lawfully seized property.
§ 2311. Disposition of Property Validly Seized.
(a) The following disposition shall be made of any papers, articles or things validly seized:
(1) If the papers, articles or things were obtained as the result of the commission of a crime, they shall be returned to their lawful owners;
(2) If the papers, articles or things were allegedly used in the commission of a crime, they shall be returned to the person from whom seized if such person is not thereafter duly convicted of the alleged crime; but if such person is duly convicted of the alleged crime, the papers, articles and things shall be disposed of as the court directs;
(3) If possession of the papers, articles or things seized is unlawful, they shall, upon petition, be disposed of as any Judge of the Superior Court directs.
(b) Any papers, articles or things validly seized may be retained by the police for a reasonable length of time for the purpose of apprehending the offender or using the papers, articles or things so seized as evidence in any criminal trial, or both.
In § 2311(a)(3), Superior Court is specifically designated as having jurisdiction to order disposition of "papers, articles or things" whose possession is "unlawful". A broad reading of this language would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walls v. Rees
...3 or with prior decisions of the Superior Court. Thompson v. Danvir Corp., Del.Super., 264 A.2d 361 (1970). See also, State v. Lloyd, Del.Super., 552 A.2d 498 (1988). There is no indication in the order governing department procedures that a vehicle is to be released only after the owner pa......
-
State v. Buchanan, ID 0801031784 (Del. Super. 4/16/2010)
...entry 119. 2. Buchanan v. Wallace, Del. Super., C.A. No. S08C-08-006, Graves, J. (Dec. 29, 2009); Docket entry 125. 3. State v. Lloyd, 552 A.2d 498, 499 (Del. Super. 4. Dorn v. State, 867 A.2d 901 (Del. 2005); Crawford v. State, 859 A.2d 624, 628 (Del. 2004). The Crawford case involved a Cr......
-
State v. Veal
...the cases where the Court has required the return of property under Section 2311(b) did not involve a convicted defendant. 11. In State v. Lloyd, which Defendant cites for support, the State entered a nolle prosequi as to defendant but refused to return his seized property, alleging the ite......