Michael W. Modica, Esq.
Phillip M. Casale, Esq.
L. Medinilla Judge.
the Court's decision on Tyrell Simpson
("Defendant")'s Motion for Reargument, filed on
July 28, 2017. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's
Motion for Reargument is GRANTED, in part; DENIED, in
part. Further, after a reconsideration of
Defendant's Amended Motion to Suppress in light of this
Court's decision on Defendant's Motion for
Reargument, for the reasons stated below, Defendant's
Amended Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
and Procedural Background
facts underlying Defendant's Motion for Reargument and
Amended Motion to Suppress have been previously described by
this Court in its July 20, 2017 Letter Opinion denying
Defendant's Motion to Suppress. The Court incorporates
that Opinion here and writes to supplement it as relevant to
the Court's analysis on the pending Motion for
the Court issued its Letter Opinion in this case, the State
sought clarification of the Court's analysis of the only
search warrant submitted for review. Defendant then filed a
Motion for Reargument. The State filed a response to the
Motion for Reargument on July 31, 2017. Meanwhile, upon
request of the Court, Defendant filed an Amended Motion to
Suppress on August 8, 2017, attaching the proper search
warrant for the Court's consideration. A hearing on the
Motion for Reargument was held on August 14, 2017.
Superior Court Criminal Rule 57(d) states: "In all cases
not provided for by rule or administrative order, the court
shall regulate its practice in accordance with the applicable
Superior Court civil rule""Superior Court Civil Rule
59 is made applicable to criminal cases by Superior Court
Criminal Rule 57(d)."
Rule 59(e) permits the Court to reconsider "its findings
of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment. . .
." "Delaware law places a heavy burden
on a [party] seeking relief pursuant to Rule
59." To prevail on a motion for reargument, the
movant must demonstrate that "the Court has overlooked a
controlling precedent or legal principle, or the Court has
misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed
the outcome of the underlying decision." Further,
"[a] motion for reargument is not a device for raising
new arguments, " nor is it "intended to rehash the
arguments already decided by the court." Such tactics
frustrate the interests of judicial efficiency and the
orderly process of reaching finality on the
issues. The moving party has the burden of
demonstrating "newly discovered evidence, a change of
law, or manifest injustice."
Motion for Reargument
Court begins with a discussion of Defendant's Motion for
hearing on this Motion, Defendant made three arguments: (1)
the Court's earlier decision rested on a supposed
"hospital policy" exception to the Fourth Amendment
with respect to the seizure of the vehicle; (2) the Court
failed to consider whether Defendant was "arrested"
rather than "detained;" and (3) the search of the
car was tainted by the initial illegal seizure of the
vehicle. Each of these will be addressed in turn
to assess whether Defendant has met his burden under Rule 59.
Detention of the Vehicle
the Court did not rest its earlier decision on a
"hospital policy" exception to the Fourth
Amendment. The Court found that the vehicle and, later in the
encounter, Defendant himself, were reasonably detained under
11 Del. C. §§ 1902(a), 1910 and Harris
v. State This finding was based on an examination
of "the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
situation 'as viewed through the eyes of a reasonable,
trained [peace] officer in the same or similar circumstances,
combining objective facts with such an officer's
subjective interpretation of those
the Court found that Constable Richardson, prior to the
detention of the vehicle: (1) observed the vehicle arrive at
the hospital; (2) noted that Defendant was the sole occupant
of the vehicle; (3) observed bullet holes in the frame of the
vehicle; (4) noted the presence of broken windows on the
driver's side of the vehicle; (5) heard from Defendant
that he had been shot; and (6) observed blood on
Defendant's shirt and arm. Moreover, Constable Richardson
had on prior occasions encountered people involved in
shootings entering the hospital to seek medical treatment.
Additionally, Constable Richardson knew ...