Case Summary: State of Delaware v. Kyran R. Jones, ID No. 2408008330 (Del. Super. May 27, 2025)

https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=380070

The following is a summary of a recent case decision published on the Delaware Courts website. This summary is provided for informational, educational, or entertainment purposes only. This is not legal advice. Generative AI may have been used in preparing this summary, therefore please read the source document before citing.

This case involves Kyran R. Jones, the defendant, who was a passenger in a car (a Tesla) that police suspected was involved in a drug deal in the parking lot of a Wawa store. Police conducted surveillance and saw Jones and another person in the Tesla briefly interact with a woman from another car (a Lincoln). After the interaction, police stopped both cars with guns drawn, ordered the occupants out, and handcuffed them. Drugs were found in plain view inside the Tesla.

Jones’s lawyer asked the Court to suppress (exclude) the drug evidence found in the Tesla, arguing that the police acted illegally. The Court agreed with Jones.

Court’s Holding:

The Court decided to grant Jones’s motion to suppress the drug evidence. This means that the drug evidence cannot be used against Jones at trial.

Factors the Court Used to Support Its Decision:

The Court’s decision was based on the idea that the police action of stopping the Tesla occupants at gunpoint and handcuffing them was an arrest that required “probable cause” (a good reason to believe a crime was committed).

The Court found the police did not have probable cause at the time of the arrest. Even if it was considered a detention (a less intrusive stop), the Court found the police action was still unreasonable. Here’s a breakdown of why:

  1. Lack of Probable Cause: The police did not see any actual drug transaction, money exchange, or drugs being passed between the individuals. Their suspicion was based on their past experiences with drug activity at the Wawa location and what they observed to be a “hand to hand” gesture inside the Tesla. The Court said this was not enough for probable cause.
  2. Arrest vs. Detention: The Court decided that the police action of drawing guns, ordering people out of the car, and handcuffing them was an arrest, not just a brief investigative detention. Arrests require probable cause, which the police lacked.
  3. Unreasonable Detention (if considered a detention): Even if the police action was considered a less-intrusive detention, the Court found it was still unreasonable. The police used a great amount of force by drawing guns and handcuffing the individuals when they did not have specific information that the Tesla occupants were armed, dangerous, or trying to run away. The Court said the police response was not reasonable to the circumstances.
  4. Insufficient Information: The police had no specific information about the people in the Tesla or the Lincoln. The Court pointed out that the police description of drug activity at the Wawa was so general that it could apply to anyone in the parking lot. This general description wasn’t enough to justify the police action.

In simpler terms:

The Court said that the police went too far in stopping the Tesla. They acted as if they had enough evidence to arrest the people in the car, but they didn’t. The police’s suspicion was just a “hunch,” not based on enough real evidence of a crime. Therefore, the drug evidence found in the car could not be used in court.