Furthermore, at the hearing, Defendant was allowed great latitude to cross-examine the Officers for credibility purposes; however, it did not appear to the Court that the Officers, who were sequestered and provided consistent testimony in a straightforward fashion, should not otherwise be believed.Id. ; see Cohan v. Simmons, 2011 WL 379309, at *4 (Del.Super.Jan. 28, 2011) (citing Rickards, 2 A.3d at 150 ) (“Delaware courts have consistently held that where a traffic stop is supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a traffic violation has occurred, the ulterior motive of the police officer is irrelevant.”). B. The Scope of the Traffic Stop

Super. 2006); Turner v. State, 25 A.3d 774, 777 (Del. 2011) (noting that Heath "was not appealed, and . . . has not been followed in any other Superior Court decisions). See also Cohan v. Simmons, 2011 WL 379309 at *3 (finding "the Delaware Supreme Court has not held that the Delaware Constitution provides greater protection that the Fourth Amendment in circumstances where a police officer conducts a valid traffic stop with an ulterior motive"); State v. Adams, 13 A.3d 1162, 1166 (Del. Super. 2008) (declining to follow Heath because "[t]here are too many occasions where . . . there was a lawful basis to stop a motor vehicle for a traffic violation which led later to arrests for other kinds of offenses").