IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, : : ID No. 1605005294 : In and for Kent County : v. : : NATHAN H. WARD : : Defendant. : :
Submitted: August 30, 2016 Decided: September 8, 2016
ORDER
On this 8th day of September, 2016, after consideration of the Defendant’s
Motion to Suppress and the State’s opposition, it appears that:
1. Defendant Nathan Ward (hereinafter “Ward”) moves to suppress evidence
seized as a result of an allegedly unlawful search and seizure. Ward argues that
Corporal Simms (hereinafter “Simms”), who conducted the search and seizure, lacked
justification to extend the traffic stop beyond its original purpose. The State opposes
Ward’s Motion to Suppress, stating that Simms had reasonable articulable suspicion
of further criminal activity that justified extending the traffic stop for further
investigation. After a hearing on the matter, the Court finds that the State presented
insufficient facts to support a reasonable suspicion of drug or illegal gun activity
sufficient to justify the extended traffic stop in this case. Accordingly, Ward’s Motion to Suppress is GRANTED.
2. The facts cited herein are those presented at the August 30, 2016 hearing.
On May 8, 2016, at roughly 3:45 in the afternoon, Simms stopped Ward in Cheswold
while he was driving a red Toyota Camry traveling 41 miles per hour in a 25 miles per
hour zone. This traffic stop was visually recorded on Simms’ MVR. The State played
the video at the hearing during the course of Simms’ testimony. After stopping the red
Toyota Camry, Simms contacted the driver, who Simms stated appeared nervous. The
video corroborated Ward’s agitation. Simms spoke with Ward and asked him where
he was coming from and where he was going. Simms testified that Ward stated he was
coming from Dover and going to see his mother to give her flowers. When Simms told
Ward that he did not see any flowers, Ward pulled flowers from behind his seat and
showed them to Simms. Simms further testified that after asking where Ward’s mother
lived, Ward answered that she lived in Dover. Ward was driving away from Dover at
the time. Additionally, Simms testified that during this inquiry, he noticed three cell
phones on the passenger seat of the vehicle. After this initial contact, Simms took
Ward’s information and ran it through the DelJIS system and found nothing illegal.
There were no warrants for Ward and the vehicle was properly registered.
3. When Simms returned the documentation to Ward, he asked Ward to step out
of the vehicle. At that time, Simms conducted a pat down search of Ward. During this
2 pat down, Simms found forty dollars on Ward’s person. Simms testified that he felt
there was illegal activity afoot because (1) Ward was traveling in the opposite direction
of where he stated he was going, (2) there were three cell phones on his passenger seat,
and (3) Ward was nervous upon initial contact, At that point, Simms requested
backup. During the next approximately twenty minutes, Ward was told to remain
standing outside his vehicle, on camera, until another officer arrived. When an officer
from State Police Troop 3 arrived, Simms requested to search Ward’s vehicle after a
lengthy discussion not audible on the video.
4. Ward testified that he was going to see his mother and his sister, taking
flowers for both of them. He explained that although his mother lived in Dover, his
sister lived in Clayton and that his mother was there for Mother’s Day dinner. He
testified that he eventually gave his consent to search the vehicle because Simms told
Ward he would simply get a search warrant absent consent. Ward stated he wanted to
avoid the trouble, so he signed a consent form. Simms, however, testified that he did
not have sufficient information to obtain a search warrant, and denied telling Ward that
he would override his decision by obtaining a warrant if Ward refused consent. Upon
a search of the vehicle, Simms located a container on the driver’s side door that
contained crack cocaine. Based upon the discovery of drugs, and the fact that Ward
had forty dollars cash in his pocket, Simms charged Ward with drug dealing and illegal
3 possession of a controlled substance, as well as speeding.
5. In a Motion to Suppress, based on a search without a warrant, the State bears
the burden of establishing that the challenged search or seizure complied with the rights
guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Delaware Constitution, and Delaware
statutory law.1 The State’s evidentiary burden in a Motion to Suppress is to prove the
challenged matter by a preponderance of the evidence.2 At a suppression hearing, the
trial judge sits as the trier of fact and determines witness credibility.3
6. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires that a traffic
stop and any subsequent police investigation be justified at its inception.4 A traffic stop
by the police is justified where there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and
the stop must be reasonable in its scope.5 A hunch is not sufficient. Delaware courts
define reasonable suspicion as
an officer's ability to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. A determination of reasonable suspicion must be evaluated in the context of the totality of the circumstances as viewed through the eyes of a reasonable, trained police officer in the same or similar circumstances, combining objective facts with such an officer's subjective
1 State v. Holmes, 2015 WL 5168374, at *3 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 2015). 2 State v. Darling, 2007 WL 1784185, at *1 (Del. Super. June 8, 2007), as corrected (July 3, 2007). 3 Turner v. State, 957 A.2d 565, 570-71 (Del. 2008). 4 Dunlap v. State, 812 A.2d 899, at *2 (Del. 2002) (TABLE). 5 Stafford v. State, 59 A.3d 1223, 1227 (Del. 2012).
4 interpretation of those facts.6
Additionally, “the duration and scope of the traffic stop must last only as long
as reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop, at which point the
legitimate investigative purpose of the traffic stop is completed.”7 Therefore, “any
investigation of the vehicle or its occupants beyond that required to complete the
purpose for the [initial] stop constitutes a separate seizure that must be supported by
independent facts sufficient to justify the additional intrusion.”8 Finally, a police officer
may protect himself by patting down the subject of his investigation.9 However, to
justify a pat down
an officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is presently armed and dangerous.10 The officer must point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with all rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. Generally, a pat down is justified based on the nature of the suspected crime, a sudden reach by the individual, a bulge, or a history with the specific individual.11
7. Here, Ward acknowledged the reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, but
argues there was insufficient evidence to extend the stop to further question Ward, pat
him down, or search the vehicle. Ward asserts that the duration and scope of the stop
6 State v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, : : ID No. 1605005294 : In and for Kent County : v. : : NATHAN H. WARD : : Defendant. : :
Submitted: August 30, 2016 Decided: September 8, 2016
ORDER
On this 8th day of September, 2016, after consideration of the Defendant’s
Motion to Suppress and the State’s opposition, it appears that:
1. Defendant Nathan Ward (hereinafter “Ward”) moves to suppress evidence
seized as a result of an allegedly unlawful search and seizure. Ward argues that
Corporal Simms (hereinafter “Simms”), who conducted the search and seizure, lacked
justification to extend the traffic stop beyond its original purpose. The State opposes
Ward’s Motion to Suppress, stating that Simms had reasonable articulable suspicion
of further criminal activity that justified extending the traffic stop for further
investigation. After a hearing on the matter, the Court finds that the State presented
insufficient facts to support a reasonable suspicion of drug or illegal gun activity
sufficient to justify the extended traffic stop in this case. Accordingly, Ward’s Motion to Suppress is GRANTED.
2. The facts cited herein are those presented at the August 30, 2016 hearing.
On May 8, 2016, at roughly 3:45 in the afternoon, Simms stopped Ward in Cheswold
while he was driving a red Toyota Camry traveling 41 miles per hour in a 25 miles per
hour zone. This traffic stop was visually recorded on Simms’ MVR. The State played
the video at the hearing during the course of Simms’ testimony. After stopping the red
Toyota Camry, Simms contacted the driver, who Simms stated appeared nervous. The
video corroborated Ward’s agitation. Simms spoke with Ward and asked him where
he was coming from and where he was going. Simms testified that Ward stated he was
coming from Dover and going to see his mother to give her flowers. When Simms told
Ward that he did not see any flowers, Ward pulled flowers from behind his seat and
showed them to Simms. Simms further testified that after asking where Ward’s mother
lived, Ward answered that she lived in Dover. Ward was driving away from Dover at
the time. Additionally, Simms testified that during this inquiry, he noticed three cell
phones on the passenger seat of the vehicle. After this initial contact, Simms took
Ward’s information and ran it through the DelJIS system and found nothing illegal.
There were no warrants for Ward and the vehicle was properly registered.
3. When Simms returned the documentation to Ward, he asked Ward to step out
of the vehicle. At that time, Simms conducted a pat down search of Ward. During this
2 pat down, Simms found forty dollars on Ward’s person. Simms testified that he felt
there was illegal activity afoot because (1) Ward was traveling in the opposite direction
of where he stated he was going, (2) there were three cell phones on his passenger seat,
and (3) Ward was nervous upon initial contact, At that point, Simms requested
backup. During the next approximately twenty minutes, Ward was told to remain
standing outside his vehicle, on camera, until another officer arrived. When an officer
from State Police Troop 3 arrived, Simms requested to search Ward’s vehicle after a
lengthy discussion not audible on the video.
4. Ward testified that he was going to see his mother and his sister, taking
flowers for both of them. He explained that although his mother lived in Dover, his
sister lived in Clayton and that his mother was there for Mother’s Day dinner. He
testified that he eventually gave his consent to search the vehicle because Simms told
Ward he would simply get a search warrant absent consent. Ward stated he wanted to
avoid the trouble, so he signed a consent form. Simms, however, testified that he did
not have sufficient information to obtain a search warrant, and denied telling Ward that
he would override his decision by obtaining a warrant if Ward refused consent. Upon
a search of the vehicle, Simms located a container on the driver’s side door that
contained crack cocaine. Based upon the discovery of drugs, and the fact that Ward
had forty dollars cash in his pocket, Simms charged Ward with drug dealing and illegal
3 possession of a controlled substance, as well as speeding.
5. In a Motion to Suppress, based on a search without a warrant, the State bears
the burden of establishing that the challenged search or seizure complied with the rights
guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Delaware Constitution, and Delaware
statutory law.1 The State’s evidentiary burden in a Motion to Suppress is to prove the
challenged matter by a preponderance of the evidence.2 At a suppression hearing, the
trial judge sits as the trier of fact and determines witness credibility.3
6. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires that a traffic
stop and any subsequent police investigation be justified at its inception.4 A traffic stop
by the police is justified where there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and
the stop must be reasonable in its scope.5 A hunch is not sufficient. Delaware courts
define reasonable suspicion as
an officer's ability to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. A determination of reasonable suspicion must be evaluated in the context of the totality of the circumstances as viewed through the eyes of a reasonable, trained police officer in the same or similar circumstances, combining objective facts with such an officer's subjective
1 State v. Holmes, 2015 WL 5168374, at *3 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 2015). 2 State v. Darling, 2007 WL 1784185, at *1 (Del. Super. June 8, 2007), as corrected (July 3, 2007). 3 Turner v. State, 957 A.2d 565, 570-71 (Del. 2008). 4 Dunlap v. State, 812 A.2d 899, at *2 (Del. 2002) (TABLE). 5 Stafford v. State, 59 A.3d 1223, 1227 (Del. 2012).
4 interpretation of those facts.6
Additionally, “the duration and scope of the traffic stop must last only as long
as reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop, at which point the
legitimate investigative purpose of the traffic stop is completed.”7 Therefore, “any
investigation of the vehicle or its occupants beyond that required to complete the
purpose for the [initial] stop constitutes a separate seizure that must be supported by
independent facts sufficient to justify the additional intrusion.”8 Finally, a police officer
may protect himself by patting down the subject of his investigation.9 However, to
justify a pat down
an officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is presently armed and dangerous.10 The officer must point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with all rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. Generally, a pat down is justified based on the nature of the suspected crime, a sudden reach by the individual, a bulge, or a history with the specific individual.11
7. Here, Ward acknowledged the reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, but
argues there was insufficient evidence to extend the stop to further question Ward, pat
him down, or search the vehicle. Ward asserts that the duration and scope of the stop
6 State v. Chandler, 132 A.3d 133, 141 (Del. Super. 2015), as corrected (Apr. 14, 2015). 7 Id. at 142 (Del. Super. 2015), as corrected (Apr. 14, 2015). 8 Caldwell v. State, 780 A.2d 1037, 1047 (Del. 2001). 9 State v. Chandler, 132 A.3d 133, 141 (Del. Super. 2015), as corrected (Apr. 14, 2015). 10 Id. 11 Id.
5 exceeded the time reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop, a traffic
violation for speeding. Additionally, Ward argues that the pat down was not justified
and was an illegal search and seizure. Finally, Ward argues that the consent to search
the vehicle was unduly influenced by Simms’ threat to obtain a warrant for which the
officer admits there was insufficient evidence to provide probable cause.
8. The State argues that there were sufficient facts to support reasonable
articulable suspicion to extend the traffic stop for further investigation. The State
asserts that Simms’ observation of Ward’s nervous behavior upon initial contact, the
three cell phones on the passenger seat of the vehicle, and that Ward appeared to be
traveling in the opposite direction of where he stated he was going provided reasonable
suspicion of drug or illegal gun activity. The State contends that under a totality of the
circumstances, with the speeding, there were enough articulable facts to support a
reasonable suspicion to justify the twenty minute extended traffic stop and subsequent
search.
9. Ward’s argument framed the evidentiary threshold for extending the stop as
one requiring probable cause of additional criminal activity. Based on the authority
cited above, the justification for extension of the stop must be evaluated under a
reasonable suspicion standard rather than probable cause. Nevertheless, here, the
Court does not find reasonable articulable suspicion in this case to warrant an extended
6 investigation after the initial traffic stop for speeding. Namely, under the totality of the
circumstances, there has not been a showing of sufficient articulable facts that would
rise to a level of reasonable suspicion of drug or illegal weapons activity as the State
claims. The testimony regarding nervous behavior is not dispositive of any criminal
wrongdoing, and in fact is a typical reaction for many vehicle operators after being
stopped by a police officer.
10. Additionally, there seemed to be a misunderstanding regarding Ward’s
destination. The Court finds that upon inquiry, Ward answered the questions that were
asked of him. He stated that he was leaving Dover and he was going to see his mother
to give her flowers for Mother’s Day. When he was asked where his mother lived,
Ward answered honestly and stated that she lives in Dover. Accordingly, the
misunderstanding regarding direction of travel is understandable. Furthermore, Ward
presented two bouquets of flowers to Simms, upon inquiry, corroborating that he was
in fact on his way to give flowers to someone on Mother’s Day.
11. Finally, the existence of three cell phones in the vehicle, although not
common, is also not determinative of any wrong doing where no other objective facts
support reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity. All of the facts analyzed
together do not raise a reasonable suspicion that Ward was armed and dangerous or
was engaged in drug activity at the time.
7 12. Accordingly, the State did not meet its burden to present objective facts
sufficient to justify the detention beyond that of a normal speeding stop in this case.
The Court finds that under the circumstances of this case, the subsequent twenty minute
detention measurably extended the time necessary to conduct the traffic stop without
justification. It therefore follows that evidence secured after Simms patted down Ward
is suppressed from use at trial. The Court need not, and does not, address the validity
of the consent for the officers’ search of the vehicle after this twenty minute extended
detention.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Nathan Ward’s Motion
to Suppress must be GRANTED.
/s/Jeffrey J Clark Judge