Pierson v. State
Supreme Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
DUFFY, Justice:
We here consider whether undated information in an application defects a search warrant and requires suppression of evidence seized in its execution.
I
Defendant was convicted of burglary. At trial the fruits of the search warrant, “a sack of burglary tools” and three rings, were admitted into evidence; defendant’s standing to seek suppression was established after conviction in an appeal to this Court. Pierson v. State, Del.Supr., 311 A. 2d 854 (1973).
Following a post-remand hearing, the Superior . Court concluded that the “. . . affidavit when read as a whole appears sufficient…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Sgro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Samuel Rosencranz v. United States of America, Anthony Dipietro v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966
- United States v. Thomas Anderson (Aka Workman), United States of America v. Samuel LovingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971
- Fowler v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
- United States v. Alfonso AcostaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Sisson v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2006
- Dorsey v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000
- Jensen v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
- State v. SissonSuperior Court of Delaware · 2005
- Gardner v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1989
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.