The Delaware Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of Artezz Finney for possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, rejecting his appeal that challenged the superior court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a vehicle search.
The court issued its decision Jan. 28, 2026, in *Finney v. State*, affirming the lower court's ruling in a case that centered on Fourth Amendment protections during police searches and the admissibility of evidence in firearm possession cases.
Finney sought review of his conviction, claiming the Superior Court of Delaware erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence collected from his vehicle during the June 30, 2023, incident in Wilmington.
According to court records, three Wilmington Police Department officers were on patrol on Montgomery Street when they observed a black Chevrolet Malibu parked on the west side of the street. Sergeant Sean Nolan, Detective Jackson Rosembert, and SPO Justin Phelps were traveling northbound when Sergeant Nolan spotted an individual in the driver's seat holding what appeared to be a silver firearm.
The individual was later identified as Finney, who was the sole occupant of the vehicle. After observing the firearm, Sergeant Nolan immediately communicated his observations to the other officers and positioned their patrol vehicle in front of the black Malibu.
The officers then exited their vehicle, drew their weapons, and surrounded Finney's car. Detective Rosembert radioed in the incident, reporting the presence of a "person with a gun" to dispatch and other units in the area.
SPO Phelps, who recognized Finney from previous police encounters, approached the driver's side of the vehicle. Upon opening Finney's door, the officer asked "Where is the gun?" according to court documents.
Finney's response provided crucial evidence in the case. He told the officer, "It's back there. It's my wife's gun, not mine," while gesturing toward the back of the vehicle. SPO Phelps then removed Finney from the car, leading to the discovery of the firearm and subsequent charges.
The case highlights the intersection of Fourth Amendment protections and public safety concerns when law enforcement officers observe individuals in possession of firearms. Finney's legal team argued that the evidence obtained during the search should be suppressed, likely contending that the officers lacked sufficient justification for the search or that proper procedures were not followed.
However, the Superior Court of Delaware initially denied Finney's motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the search and seizure were conducted lawfully. The trial court's decision allowed prosecutors to use the evidence against Finney, leading to his conviction for possession of a firearm by a person prohibited.
Under Delaware law, certain individuals are prohibited from possessing firearms, including those with felony convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, or other legal disqualifications. The "person prohibited" statute is designed to keep firearms away from individuals who may pose a public safety risk.
Finney appealed the superior court's ruling to the Delaware Supreme Court, which considered the case en banc with all five justices participating. Chief Justice Seitz was joined by Justices Valihura, Traynor, Legrow, and Griffiths in reviewing the appeal.
The supreme court's decision to affirm the conviction suggests that the justices found the officers' actions were justified under the circumstances. The observation of an individual holding a firearm in a vehicle likely provided sufficient reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the officers to approach and investigate.
The case was submitted to the Delaware Supreme Court on Oct. 29, 2025, and decided three months later. The court's order indicates that the justices considered the parties' briefs, heard oral arguments from counsel, and reviewed the complete trial record before reaching their decision.
The affirmance of Finney's conviction reinforces law enforcement authority to investigate potential weapons violations when officers have direct visual confirmation of firearms. The decision may influence future cases involving vehicle searches and firearm possession charges in Delaware.
For Finney, the supreme court's ruling represents the end of his direct appeal process, though other post-conviction remedies may still be available. The case demonstrates the challenges defendants face when appealing firearm possession convictions, particularly when law enforcement officers have direct observations of the alleged criminal activity.
The Delaware Supreme Court's decision joins a body of precedent governing vehicle searches, Fourth Amendment protections, and firearm possession cases, providing guidance for law enforcement officers and defense attorneys in similar future situations.