State v. Hollar ( 2021 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE :
: I.D. No.: 2011007650
v. :
:
BRANDON HOLLAR, :
:
Defendant. :
Submitted: November 4, 2021
Decided: December 7, 2021
Upon State’s Motion to Summarily Dismiss
Defendant’s Amended Motion to Suppress
GRANTED IN PART
Upon Defendant’s Amended Motion to Suppress
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Brandon Hollar’s (the
“Defendant”) Amended Motion to Suppress and the State’s Motion to Summarily
Dismiss Defendant’s Amended Motion to Suppress. For the reasons set forth below,
the State’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART, and Defendant’s Amended Motion is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with leave to re-file an appropriate motion
to suppress within 10 days from the date of this Order.
1
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On June 7, 2021, a Kent County grand jury indicted Defendant on multiple
charges, including Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited and Drug Dealing.
These charges arose from the execution of a Rule 9 Warrant, a protective security
sweep of Defendant’s residence, and the execution of a subsequent search warrant.
On September 23, 2021, Defendant filed a seven-paragraph Motion to
Suppress (the “Motion”). The Motion contained no citations to case law or any other
legal authority, and did not include any affidavits, police reports, or other
informational exhibits. On September 27, 2021, the State filed a Motion to
Summarily Dismiss the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress without leave to refile.
On September 28, 2021, Defendant submitted a Motion to File Out of Time,
stating his intent to clarify and provide additional legal support to his original
Motion. The Court granted the Motion to File Out of Time on October 6, 2021. On
the same day, Defendant filed an Amended Motion to Suppress (the “Amended
Motion”). This Amended Motion was nearly identical to his original Motion, except
for the addition of a single footnote. In response, the State filed a Motion to
Summarily Dismiss the Defendant’s Amended Motion to Suppress (the “Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Motion”). On October 12, 2021, Defendant submitted a
Response to the State’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Motion.
2
II. Legal Standard
“A movant seeking suppression of evidence has an obligation to present both
a specific statement of facts and a statement of legal authority so as to persuade the
Court to grant its motion.”1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 41(f) (“Rule 41”) provides
the standards that govern the factual and legal sufficiency of a motion to suppress.
Rule 41 requires that a motion to suppress state the grounds upon which it is made
with sufficient specificity in order to (1) give the State reasonable notice of the
issues; and (2) enable the Court to determine what proceedings are appropriate to
address them.2 A party’s failure to allege factual bases upon which relief may be
granted may result in the Court (1) determining that a suppression hearing is not
needed, and (2) summarily denying the motion.3
III. Discussion
The State argues that Defendant’s Amended Motion is “factually sparse, is
almost entirely devoid of any citation to legal authority, and lacks an affidavit to
support its challenge to the execution of the warrants.”4 Because of these
1
State v. Kaniecki, 2021 WL 5114938, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 4, 2021).
2
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 41(f).
3
State v. Wilson, 2008 WL 2192815, at *1 (Del. Super. May 23, 2008) (noting that legal authorities instruct that
“general and conclusory allegations are not sufficient to trigger a [suppression] hearing.”).
4
Mot. to Summarily Dismiss Amen. Mot. to Suppress ¶ 8.
3
deficiencies, the State contends that the Amended Motion is “facially insufficient”
and fails to comport with the requirements of Rule 41.5 The Court agrees.
A. The Requirements of Rule 41
This Court “invites practitioners to consider motions to suppress as analogous
to a pleading or an oral objection to the admissibility of evidence made during the
course of trial – i.e., requiring a high degree of specificity.”6 This invitation is
reflected in the text of Rule 41.7 However, when a party fails to provide sufficient
factual allegations or statements of law to support the motion, and instead provides
only general conclusory statements, the Court may determine that a hearing or
further consideration of the motion is not needed.8
The recent case of State v. Kaniecki demonstrates this point.9 In that case, the
defendant filed a motion and an amended motion to suppress evidence seized as the
result of a traffic stop and subsequent search warrant.10 However, the amended
motion provided conclusory statements and only limited citation to legal authority
that purported to support the defendant’s argument.11 Throughout its opinion, the
5
Id.6
State v. Dunson, No. 1612008614, slip op. at 2 (Del. Super. July 7, 2017).
7
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 41(f).
8
Kaniecki, 2021 WL 5114938, at *1.
9
Id.10
Id.11
Id. at *2.
4
Court provided illustrations of the motion’s deficiencies.12 For example, the Court
noted that, although the motion contended that the defendant’s vehicle was stopped
without adequate probable cause, it failed to provide any factual basis for that
assertion.13 Further, although the motion argued that defendant, a passenger in the
stopped vehicle, had standing to challenge the stop, the defense provided no legal
authority to support the proposition.14 Because of the apparent “paucity of factual
support and legal authority” within the motion, the Court summarily dismissed the
defendant’s motion without prejudice.15
B. Defendant’s Motions
Like the motion at issue in Kaniecki, Defendant’s Amended Motion offers
mostly conclusory statements with limited legal support and almost no factual
analysis. Defendant’s original seven-paragraph Motion asserted, without further
explanation or analysis: (1) the scope of the security sweep “tainted the entire search
warrant[;]” (2) “[t]here did not exist a legitimate nexus between the Defendant’s
alleged drug activities and his home prior to the entry to serve a Rule 9 warrant;”
and (3) “[t]here were no exigent circumstances that would suggest the Defendant’s
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
Id.
5
home had to be breeched [sic] some fifteen (15) days after the Rule 9 warrant was
issued.”16 In making these arguments, Defendant cited no legal authority and offered
no supporting affidavits.
Defendant subsequently amended his Motion to provide one footnote of
citation to legal authority. The four cases cited within the footnote purport to support
Defendant’s assertion that the security sweep of Defendant’s home was improper.
In its Response to the State’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Motion, the Defense
notes that one of those cases, State v. Roundtree, is “prima facie precedent”
addressing “all other aspects of the illegal search.”17 Given these circumstances, the
Court must determine whether the factual assertions and legal authority within
Defendant’s Amended Motion adequately (1) put the State on notice of the issues
Defendant intends to raise; and (2) enable the Court to determine what proceedings
are appropriate to address them.
1. Factual Analysis in the Defendant’s Motion
The Defendant’s Amended Motion makes numerous conclusory assertions
without providing any explanation or analysis. For example, although Defendant
states that there was an insufficient nexus between “Defendant’s alleged drug
16
Mot. to Suppress ¶¶ 5-7.
17
Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss Am. Mot. to Suppress ¶ 4.
6
activities and his home prior to the entry to serve a Rule 9 warrant,”18 he did not
provide a copy of the warrant at issue, or a summary of the facts relied upon within
the warrant. The Amended Motion cites no case law to demonstrate the information
required to establish a nexus between the alleged criminal activity and the place to
be searched. The Amended Motion provides no explanation as to why the nexus
should be considered insufficient. Without the presentation of these factual
arguments, the Court is unable to conclude that it should grant Defendant’s
Amended Motion.
Defendant contends that, because the State is “aware of Roundtree,” it is
sufficiently on notice of the factual arguments Defendant intends to rely upon in
support of his Amended Motion.19 However, even if the State is “aware of
Roundtree” and the issues it addresses, Defendant’s Amended Motion fails to
connect the dots adequately between the cited case law and the facts of the instant
case. The Amended Motion provides very little factual explanation of (1) the
execution of the Rule 9 warrant; (2) the execution of the security sweep; or (3) the
execution of the subsequent search warrant. Without an adequate description of these
events, both the State and the Court are forced to speculate about what occurred and
18
Am. Mot. to Suppress ¶ 6.
19
Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss Am. Mot. to Suppress ¶ 3.
7
how those events relate to Defendant’s legal arguments.20 Mere reference to four
case names, without any accompanying legal analysis, cannot cure this deficiency.
2. Case Law Cited by Defendant
Defendant contends that his citation to Roundtree should sufficiently put the
State on “proper notice as to the legal arguments the Defendant intends to rely upon
for support of his Motion.”21 In Roundtree, the defendant moved to suppress
evidence uncovered during a warrantless search of his residence. 22 The warrantless
search occurred as part of a protective security sweep, during which police
discovered contraband.23 After observing the contraband, the police applied for and
executed a search warrant, through which they discovered an illegal firearm.24 The
defendant contended that the officers’ security sweep exceeded its permissible
bounds, and, therefore, tainted the subsequent discovery of the contraband.25 In
evaluating the defendant’s claim, the Court analyzed two distinct exceptions to the
20
See Dunson, 1612008614, slip op. at 2-3 (“Motions that lack sufficient factual allegations and statements of law
force the Court into the role of counsel, making the parties’ best arguments for them, and raising issues they
themselves did not raise. This is inappropriate in our adversarial system.”).
21
Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss Am. Mot. to Suppress ¶ 4.
22
State v. Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 4, 2017).
23
Id.24
Id.25
Id. at *2.
8
general warrant requirement: (1) the emergency doctrine; and (2) a limited protective
sweep incident to arrest.26
Therefore, although Defendant is correct in his assertion that Roundtree
addresses the issue of the proper scope of a protective sweep, the case says nothing
about (1) establishing the requisite nexus between Defendant’s alleged illegal
behavior and the place to be searched pursuant to a search warrant, or (2) the proper
time frame for executing a Rule 9 warrant – both of which were raised by Defendant
in his Amended Motion. The other cases cited in Defendant’s singular footnote also
fail to address these issues.
IV. Conclusion
Defendant’s Motion and Amended Motion fail to comply with the
requirements of Rule 41. Accordingly, no suppression hearing is necessary to
consider the merits of Defendant’s Amended Motion. The Court will grant the
State’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Motion, and will deny Defendant’s
Amended Motion without prejudice. Thus, Defendant may file a motion to suppress
that contains the requisite legal and factual support.
26
Id. at *3-4.
9
WHEREFORE, the State’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART, and
Defendant’s Amended Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with
leave to re-file an appropriate motion to suppress within 10 days from the date of
this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
RLG/ds
Via Email & U.S. Mail
OC: Prothonotary
Kevin B. Smith, Esquire
James E. Ligouri, Esquire
10