Opinion
ID # 1504007548
08-10-2015
RE: State v. Tyrone Brooks
Christina M. Kontis, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Carvel State Office Building 820 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Kevin J. O'Connell, Esquire Assistant Public Defender Carvel State Office Building 820 North French Street, 3rd Floor Wilmington, DE 19801
FRED S. SILVERMAN JUDGE Christina M. Kontis, Esquire
Deputy Attorney General
Carvel State Office Building
820 North French Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Kevin J. O'Connell, Esquire
Assistant Public Defender
Carvel State Office Building
820 North French Street, 3rd Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Upon Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence - DENIED without prejudice.
Dear Counsel:
Defendant challenges the seizure of drugs stemming from his being stopped for walking on a highway at night without a light. As a result of the stop, the police immediately learned Defendant was wanted. Accordingly, he was arrested, and when searched incident to that arrest, contraband turned-up. Now, Defendant claims the original detention was merely pretextual. Therefore, he is entitled to suppression of the contraband.
21 Del. C. § 4148(a): "No pedestrian shall walk upon any roadway or shoulders of any roadway of this State that is used for motor or vehicle traffic, beyond the corporate limits of any city or town, without carrying a lighted lantern, lighted flashlight or other similar light or reflector type device during the period of time from sunset to sunrise . . . ."
Defendant relies exclusively on State v. Heath This Superior Court decision has been followed once-by its author-and has been questioned by this court five times and the Supreme Court once. To be clear, this decision also questions Heath. But even if Heath were correct, this case requires extending Heath's holding. In any event, this court declines to follow Heath.
929 A.2d 390 (Del. Super. 2006).
See Turner v. State, Del., 25 A.3d 774, 777 (2011).
The court will assume for present purposes that the police actually saw Defendant walking by the road after dark, without a light, in violation of the law. That appears to be uncontested. The court will further assume that the violation is relatively trivial. Finally, the court will also assume that the police used the violation as a pretext to stop Defendant and ask him to identify himself, as Defendant alleges.
21 Del. C. § 4148(b): "Whoever violates subsection (a) of this section shall for the first offense be fined not less than $2.30 nor more than $28.25. For each subsequent like offense within 1 year, the person shall be fined not less than $11.50 nor more than $28.25." --------
Nevertheless, taking the observed violation into account and the minimally invasive intrusion on Defendant's liberty, the court sees no reason to suppress the evidence obtained when the police, after stopping Defendant, learned almost immediately that he was wanted. After the police stopped Defendant, they were entitled to cite him and, in the process, ask his name. Moreover, having seen Defendant break one law, albeit a minor one, the police were at least entitled to hold Defendant long enough to quickly determine if he was wanted for breaking any other law.
If either side sees a reason to revisit this decision, a timely submission may be filed. In any event, the court will not conduct an evidentiary hearing unless the specific reason for one is made clear.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Fred S. Silverman FSS: mes
oc: Prothonotary (Criminal)