Submitted: August 28, 2018
Defendant's Motion to Suppress. Denied.
Lindsay A. Taylor, Esquire, Department of Justice, Dover,
Delaware; attorney for the State of Delaware.
Anthony J. Capone, Esquire of the Office of the Public
Defender, Dover, Delaware; attorney for Defendant.
WITHAM, JR. RESIDENT JUDGE.
consideration of Brice Hall's ("Defendant")
Motion to Suppress, the State of Delaware's Response in
opposition, the Court's hearing on the motion, along with
supplemental memorandums from the parties, it appears that:
February 27, 2018, Delaware police detained the
seventeen-year-old Defendant for violating his probation.
enforcement transported the Defendant to the police station
and summoned his mother.
the Defendant's mother present, Officer Jacob Rankin
("Rankin") read him his rights pursuant to
Miranda. The conversation was recorded. The
Defendant waived his rights and provided a non-incriminatory
After the Defendant's statement, Rankin requested consent
to obtain a DNA sample from the Defendant. The Defendant and
his mother both signed a "Consent Form"
(hereinafter, the "DNA Consent Form") acknowledging
the Defendant's consent for the search. 
Subsequently, Rankin ceased recording and escorted the
Defendant's mother from the interrogation room.
short time later, Officer Robert Cunningham
("Cunningham") entered the interview room and, in
the absence of the Defendant's mother, requested the
Defendant's consent to search his cell-phone. This
interaction was not recorded.
Defendant initially refused. However, Cunningham told the
Defendant that they would obtain a warrant to search the
phone. He subsequently agreed to sign the second
"Consent Form" (hereinafter, the "Cell-Phone
Consent Form") permitting the search. Cunningham read
the form, in it's entirety, to the Defendant before he
signed.  The Cell-Phone Consent Form was never
presented to the Defendant's mother.
Cunningham searched the Defendant's cell-phone and found
evidence of the charges filed in the present case.
Another police officer, Officer John Wilson
("Wilson") confronted the Defendant about the
evidence, whereby he made incriminating statements. This
conversation was recorded.
June 4, 2018, the Defendant filed the instant motion seeking
to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his
cell-phone. The Defendant contends that his consent was not
voluntary in light of the preceding circumstances, and
particularly takes issue with the failure of police to record
the conversation that secured his consent.
June 11, 2018, the State filed its response in opposition.
The State contends that the Defendant's consent was
voluntary because: (i) he executed two separate "Consent
Forms"  that informed him of his right to refuse a
search; (ii) he has had numerous interactions with the police
prior to this incident, where he previously refused to waive
his rights; (iii) he is a high-school student of average
intelligence; (iv) he communicated effectively with police
during his detention; (v) he cooperated with police in the
presence of his mother, thereby making his subsequent
cooperation in her absence less suspicious; (vi) his
detention, up until the point of his consent, was relatively
short; and (vii) during the entire process, Rankin,
Cunningham, and Wilson were polite and respectful toward the
a result of the Defendant's presentation at the
suppression hearing that expanded the scope of his argument
which was not specifically stated in his motion, the Court
permitted both parties to exchange memoranda to address the
argument's expanded scope; specifically, whether the