DE: Search warrant for some things and “other items that may be stolen” wasn’t overbroad where officers used a list

A Franks challenge in Delaware requires an affidavit from the defendant, and there isn’t one. The Franks claim is, at best, only a conclusory statement that the officer had an ends-justifies-the-means mentality, but, as a whole, probable cause is shown. The particularity clause wasn’t overinclusive just because it listed “other items that may be stolen” when they came into the search with a specific list and kept to it. State v. Boyer, 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 368 (June 23, 2015).

It was a reasonable inference the students stopped for drinking on campus and in public were under 21. “While neither Dunteman nor Officer Anderson knew the ages of the group members prior to obtaining their IDs, it was rational to infer that they were under 21 years old because the group members were on a college campus near a dormitory housing mainly freshman and sophomore students.” The stops were thus valid. State v. Meyer, 2015 SD 64, 2015 S.D. LEXIS 114 (July 22, 2015).*