DE: Uncorroborated CI doesn’t provide PC

The CI was not sufficiently corroborated, and it thus fails to show probable cause. State v. Mason, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 172 (Apr. 6, 2023)*:

The Court notes that this list refers to “Defendant” on surveillance. However, Defendant is not identifiable on the films. Additionally, Paragraph 2 in the Application and Affidavit describes “a dark-skinned black male, 5’6″ to 5’6 1/2″, in his mid-twenties wearing a navy-blue bucket hat and gray hooded sweatshirt.” However, nothing in the Affidavit states that Defendant matches that description. The sole connection between the information in the Affidavit and the Defendant is the accomplice statement that Defendant is the person referred to as “S1.” The vehicle was the property of the accomplice. The place to be searched was the home of Defendant, not the accomplice.

The credibility of the accomplice is questionable. Throughout her post-arrest interview, her story about the events changed – from denial of all culpability to admission of some participation in the crime. The accomplice denied key aspects of her involvement that contradict surveillance footage – such as the accomplice retrieving a firearm from the dumpster in which it was placed immediately following the robbery. However, her identification of Defendant as a co-conspirator did not waver.

The Court finds that the Application and Affidavit fail to provide probable cause supporting issuance of the search warrant. The co-conspirator’s statement that her accomplice was Defendant is uncorroborated.