State v. Vonduyke

── State v. Vonduyke ── Court: Superior Court of Delaware Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 2506013076 ) TIMOTHY M. VONDUYKE, ) ) Defendant. Submitted: May 5, 2026 Decided: May 15, 2026 ORDER In this criminal prosecution for Driving Under the Influence, Defendant Timothy Vonduyke moves to suppress his on-scene arrest as unsupported by probable cause. He further moves to suppress his blood sample, challenging the search warrant used to obtain it. The parties convened for a hearing before the Court on May 5, 2026. At the outset, the Court sought to clarify the parties’ positions regarding the burden of proof, the standard of review, and what evidentiary basis applies to this Motion. After discussing caselaw, the parties presented testimony on whether the arresting officer possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless arrest of Mr. Vonduyke.1 The parties also submitted that—if the Court determined there was sufficient probable cause to arrest—then the Court should scrutinize the 1 While the parties did not cite Swanson v. State, the Court understands the argument presented to be similar. See generally 351 A.3d 496 (Del. 2025). search warrant for Mr. Vonduyke’s blood sample under a ‘four corners’ assessment.2 The Court has reviewed counsel’s arguments, factored for all applicable testimony, and considered governing caselaw. The Motion to Suppress is DENIED. Factual Background On the issue of probable cause to arrest, Sergeant Olicker of Newark Police Department testified. By way of background, Sergeant Olicker has received training from the police academy on driving under the influence (“DUI”) investigations, drug recognition, and advanced roadside impaired driving enforcement. He instructs police recruits on standardized field sobriety tests. In his estimation, he makes approximately two hundred traffic stops per year, of which around eight are for DUI investigations. Sergeant Olicker testified that on the night at issue, he was driving a marked police car on East Cleveland Avenue. As he approached a streetlight at which several cars were waiting, he noticed that the taillights of the first car—Mr. Vonduyke’s white Jeep—were not illuminated.3 The light turned green, and all cars proceeded. 2 The parties agreed that the portion of the search warrant related to the horizontal gaze nystagmus test should be redacted and not considered by the Court for these purposes. 3 The State entered a video of the intersection as an exhibit. That video does not show the Jeep’s rear.  After Sergeant Olicker activated his lights, it took the Jeep roughly ¼ mile to pull over. Although the speed limit was thirty-five miles per hour, he traveled up to forty-eight miles per hour to catch the Jeep.4 More specifically, the Jeep slowed (but passed) “numerous” parking lots prior to entering a shopping center. Mr. Vonduyke was the driver. There were three passengers. A defense witness testified she was a passenger, along with two college friends; all three of them had been consuming alcohol at the Deer Park, a tavern.5 After being apprised that the reason for the stop was “driving without any headlights or taillights,” Mr. Vonduyke stated he thought the lights were automatic and apologized. He then appeared to adjust the lights. Sergeant Olicker observed Mr. Vonduyke’s eyes to be bloodshot and red. When asked on cross-examination about whether these observations can be