State of Delaware v. Blake.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
STATE OF DELAWARE,
v.
RAYMOND BLAKE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ID. No. 1101013572
ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 4th day of January, 2012, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED as follows:
Before the Court is Defendant’s, Raymond Blake (“Blake” or “Defendant”)
Motion to Suppress. Officers had probable cause to arrest Blake, the search of
Blake was incident to a lawful arrest and Blake consented to the search of his
house. Therefore, the Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
Background
On November 8, 2010, officers of the WPD were conducting a drug
investigation. On that date, officers had a confidential informant call Defendant
for the purpose of purchasing narcotics. Blake agreed to sell the confidential
informant narcotics in a certain location. Officers set up surveillance in that
location. Blake approached the location approximately 20-30 minutes after the call
1
and pulled over to the left side of the road. Officers arrested Blake and Miranda
warnings were administered.
After the Miranda warnings, Blake agreed to speak with officers. Blake
signed an authorization and release to search his residence on November 8, 2012.
Based on this consent, officers executed a search of his house; narcotics and drug
paraphernalia were recovered.
Blake was processed for these charges and additional charges on January 19,
2011. At trial in this Court, the jury found Blake: (1) not guilty of Possession with
Intent to Deliver Heroin and Cocaine; (2) guilty of Possession of Heroin and
Cocaine; and (3) not guilty of Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled
Substances. The jury was hung on Trafficking in Cocaine. This Court informed
the State that it would have 10 days to make a decision about retrying Blake on the
Trafficking in Cocaine charge. On October 24, 2011, the State obtained a
reindictment on both the Trafficking in Heroin (Count I) and Trafficking in
Cocaine (Count II) charges.
Blake expressed an interest in representing himself at his retrial. On the eve
before trial, the Court held a colloquy and determined Blake is permitted to
represent himself. Blake filed a Motion to Suppress and or Dismiss
Evidence/Motion to Challenge the Veracity of the Affidavit on June 23, 2011.
2
Parties’ Contentions
Blake alleges the following in his motion: (1) he was never issued a driving
citation and the stop was pretextual; (2) the search of Blake’s person was improper
and should be suppressed; and (3) the search warrant was obtained based on false
information presented to the Magistrate.
Discussion
The Police Officers Had Probable Cause to Arrest Blake.
Blake’s first and second arguments are meritless because officers had
probable cause to arrest Blake. A person’s right to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Delaware Constitution. In Terry v. Ohio, 1 the
United States Supreme Court held that a police officer may only detain a person
for investigatory purposes if such detention is supported by a reasonable and
articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Delaware has codified this standard
under 11 Del. C. § 1902. The underlying purpose of this section is to legalize the
questioning and detention of individuals without probable cause. 2 However,
because officers had probable cause to arrest Blake, the reasonable articulable
suspicion analysis is inapplicable.
1
2
392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Hicks v. State, 631 A.2d 6, 9 (Del. 1993).
3
“Probable cause is determined by the totality of the circumstances, as
viewed by a reasonable police officer in the light of his or her training and
experience. To establish probable cause, the police are only required to present
facts which suggest that there is a fair probability that the defendant has committed
a crime.” 3 Here, Detective Wilkers and Officer Joe Leary had probable cause to
arrest Defendant. During the investigation conducted, Detective Wilkers and
Officer Leary obtained Blake’s cell phone number from a citizen who informed
them that he was selling crack cocaine. Detective Wilkers had a past proven and
reliable informant call Blake to purchase crack cocaine. Blake agreed to sell the
informant drugs and arranged to meet the informant at the corner of West 5th Street
and North Lincoln Street. Officers conducted surveillance and arrested Blake
when he arrived at the location. Blake was taken into custody upon arrival.
Given the totality of the circumstances present in this case, there is fair probability
that Blake committed a crime. Therefore, officers had probable cause to arrest
Blake.
Additionally, Blake’s argument that the stop was pretextual is inapplicable
to this case. A pretexutal stop exists when “an officer has probable cause or
reasonable suspicion to believe that a motorist has violated a traffic law, but which
the officer would not have made absent a desire, not supported by probable cause
3
Thomas v. State, 8 A.2d 1195, 1197 (Del. 2010).
4
or reasonable suspicion, to investigate a more serious offense.” 4 This did not occur
here because there was not a stop based on a violation of a traffic law. Rather,
officers arrested Blake immediately when he arrived at the location to sell drugs to
the confidential informant.
The Search of Blake Was a Search Incident to a Valid Arrest.
The search of Blake was a search incident to a valid arrest. Once the arrest
had occurred, the officers could lawfully search Blake incident to that arrest. 5
Therefore, the narcotics recovered from the officer’s search, after the arrest, are
admissible.
There Was Not a Search Warrant In This Case.
Blake alleges that the police misrepresented facts in Affidavit of Probable
Cause. This argument is meritless because there was no search warrant in this
case. The search warrant Blake refers to is for a different case unrelated to this
matter.
Blake signed a standard consent form authorizing the WPD to search his
residence. Searches that are conducted pursuant to a valid consent are an
exception to the warrant requirement. 6 To be valid, a consent to search must be
4
State v. Heath, 929 A.2d 390, 397 (Del. Super. Nov. 28, 2006)(citing Brian J. O'Donnell, Note,
Whren v. United States: An Abrupt End to the Debate Over Pretextual Stops, 49 Me. L.Rev. 207,
208, n. 3 (1997))(internal quotations omitted).
5
See Williams v. State, 962 A.2d 210, 222 (Del. 2008).
6
Scott v. State, 672 A.2d 550, 552 (Del. 1996).
5
voluntarily given by a person with the authority to consent. 7 Here, Blake
voluntarily signed the standard search form to search his residence. Thus, Blake’s
consent to search his residence was valid.
Conclusion
Based on the forgoing, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/calvin l. scott
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.
7
Id.
6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
