Legal Opinion

Pierson v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided May 19, 1975PublishedCited by 52 opinions

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

  1. Sgro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Samuel Rosencranz v. United States of America, Anthony Dipietro v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966
  3. United States v. Thomas Anderson (Aka Workman), United States of America v. Samuel LovingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971
  4. Fowler v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  5. 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

  1. Sisson v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2006
  2. Dorsey v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000
  3. Jensen v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
  4. State v. SissonSuperior Court of Delaware · 2005
  5. Gardner v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1989

47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API