Opinion
No. 0409011409.
February 1, 2005.
ORDER
This 1st day of February 2005, this Court hereby finds:
1. On December 23, 2004, at the conclusion of a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, this Court suppressed certain evidence.
2. The factual basis for the Court's ruling is as follows. Two police officers were monitoring a hotel parking lot, a location known for prostitution and illegal drug transactions. Upon entering the parking lot, the officers observed a vehicle with dark tinted windows. The officers could not see if the vehicle was occupied. The vehicle was parked near the hotel office.
3. As the officers were exiting the parking lot, the vehicle's lights came on and the car moved several parking spaces. The officers pulled behind the vehicle and approached both the driver's and passenger's sides. Upon the request of the officers, the occupants rolled down the windows. The officer on the passenger's side observed a marijuana cigarette. The Defendant, the passenger, was taken into custody. During a search of the vehicle, a firearm was found. The officers did not issue any motor vehicle citation.
4. The officers testified that the reasons they detained the vehicle were: (A) the hotel parking lot was a known distribution point for narcotics; (B) by experience and training, the officers were aware that persons engaging in illegal drug transactions often prefer vehicles with dark tinted windows because the tinting obscures observation of activities in the car; and (C) the officers believed that the movement of the vehicle from one parking space to another was a reaction to the presence of the unmarked police car.
Although unmarked, the officers testified that a white Crown Victoria is readily identifiable as a police vehicle by persons who have reason to avoid law enforcement personnel.
5. The officers testified that if the vehicle had not moved, the character of the area and the tinted windows would not have caused the officers to detain the vehicle. It is undisputed that rather than fleeing the parking lot, the vehicle moved approximately seven parking spaces from the hotel office to a space in front of a room. The movement of the vehicle was consistent with a guest checking into the hotel and moving the car to the rented room. The Court ruled that tinted windows, a location known for illegal drug transactions, and the movement of the vehicle, considered as a totality of the circumstances, do not constitute a reasonable articulable suspicion for detaining the Defendant and subsequently searching the vehicle. Therefore, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Suppress and the marijuana cigarette and firearm were excluded from evidence.
6. The Attorney General, by and through Deputy Attorney General Renee L. Hrivnak, certified that the evidence is substantial, material, and essential to the prosecution of this matter.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based upon the findings set forth above and pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 9902(b), that all of the charges in the above referenced Indictment are dismissed.