Opinion
ID No. 0906025963, ID No. 0906025992.
Submitted: August 18, 2010.
Decided: September 23, 2010.
On Defendants' Motions to Suppress DENIED.
Mark A. Denney, Jr., Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.
Jennifer-Kate Arronson, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant, Lamar Tann.
Christopher D. Tease, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant, Quinton Turner.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 1, 2009, defendant Lamar Tann was indicted for Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession with Intent to Deliver a Narcotic Schedule II Controlled Substance, Maintaining a Vehicle, Tampering with Physical Evidence, Conspiracy Second, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Defendant Quinton Turner was indicted for Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession with Intent to Deliver a Narcotic Schedule II Controlled Substance, Conspiracy Second, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. The indictments stem from a June 30, 2009 traffic stop. New Castle County Police Officers found cocaine and drug paraphernalia in a vehicle registered to and driven by Tann. Turner and a third individual, Clyde Holmes, were passengers. Additionally, the officers found cocaine and drug paraphernalia on Holmes's person.
In October 2009, Tann and Turner filed Motions to Suppress. On December 18, the Court denied Tann and Turner's motions at the conclusion of the consolidated hearing. On January 12, 2010, in a non-jury trial, the Court found Tann guilty of Trafficking in Cocaine and Conspiracy Second. On January 15, a jury found Turner guilty of all four charges.
Following sentencing, Tann and Turner appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the December 18, 2009 hearing transcript (setting forth the Court's oral ruling denying defendants' Motions to Suppress) was misplaced. The Supreme Court has remanded, directing this Court to memorialize its decision.
FACTUAL CONTEXT
On June 30, 2009, Officers Timothy Golden and Roger Jackson ("Officers") of the New Castle County Police Department's Mobile Enforcement Team patrolled, in police vehicle, the area of Sixth Avenue and East Hillview Avenue in New Castle, Delaware. Officer Golden observed a white Mercury Grand Marquis approaching the Officers' position. Earlier that day, Corporal Charles Shepherd of the New Castle County Police Department had relayed a tip to the Officers that a white Mercury Grand Marquis would be involved in drug activity in the Officers' vicinity.
State v. Tann, C.A. No. 09060225933 and State v. Turner, C.A. No. 0906025992, at 4-5 (Del. Super. Dec. 18, 2009) (TRANSCRIPT).
Id. at 5.
Id. at 16-22.
Officer Golden noticed that the front passenger of the Grand Marquis, later identified as Turner, did not have his seatbelt fastened. As a result, the Officers conducted a traffic stop on the Grand Marquis.
Id. at 5-6.
Id. at 6.
Stepping out of the police vehicle, Officer Golden approached the driver of the Grand Marquis while Officer Jackson approached the passenger. Officer Golden asked the driver, Tann, for his license, registration, and proof of insurance. Tann complied, however, Officer Golden testified that "while speaking with [Tann], [he] was extremely nervous[] [and] [h]is hands were shaking uncontrollably." Meanwhile, Officer Jackson spoke with Turner who was unable to provide identification. Officer Golden testified that he overheard Turner divulge to Officer Jackson that he had $700 cash on his person. Additionally, Officer Golden noticed a box of plastic sandwich bags on the back seat of vehicle. The Officers spoke to backseat passenger Holmes who was unable to provide identification.
Id. at 7.
Id. at 8.
Id. at 9.
Id. at 8.
Id. at 8.
Corporal Shepherd arrived to assist the Officers, allowing Officer Golden to return to the police vehicle to perform a background check on the defendants. Officer Golden learned that there was an outstanding warrant for Turner's arrest and that Tann had a 2003 felony conviction for possession of a weapon with an obliterated serial number. Additional officers arrived and placed Turner under arrest. Those officers found $695 on Turner's person. Subsequently, Officer Jackson asked Tann to step out of the vehicle. Before doing so, Tann made a sharp movement, reaching for an unknown object beneath his seat. Officer Jackson placed Tann in custody.
Id. at 9-10.
Id. at 10.
Id. at 10.
Id. at 11.
Id. at 12.
Id. at 11.
Officer Golden asked Holmes to step out of the vehicle. As Holmes proceeded, Officer Golden noticed a large bulge in Holmes's shorts pocket — so large that it forced the pocket's fold open, making its contents visible. Officer Golden was able to see an off-white substance in Holmes's pocket that, through his experience, he believed to be cocaine. Officer Golden placed Holmes under arrest. A search of Holmes's person revealed four bags of cocaine, a razor blade, and small plastic bags. Subsequently, police searched underneath the driver's seat, finding forty-four small plastic bags of cocaine. A later search of the Grand Marquis revealed a digital scale that had white residue on it.
Id. at 12.
Id. at 13.
Id. at 12.
Id. at 14.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
Defendants move to suppress the evidence found in the Grand Marquis. Defendants contend that the traffic stop was pretextual, and therefore, the Officers lacked sufficient justification to conduct a traffic stop in the first instance. Further, defendants contend that the duration and scope of traffic stop was excessive, as the Officers lacked reasonable suspicion to continue to detain defendants as the events of the traffic stop unfolded. Finally, defendants assert that the Officers lacked probable cause to perform a warrantless search of the Grand Marquis. Each defect alone, defendants maintain, merits suppression of the evidence found in the Grand Marquis.
The State responds that all evidence is admissible. The issue of pretext, the State contends, is irrelevant because the Officers had reasonable suspicion that some violation had occurred; a traffic violation is sufficient. The State argues that the Officers maintained reasonable suspicion throughout the traffic stop, supported by Tann's erratic behavior, Turner's statement that he had $700 cash on his person and the subsequent discovery of $695 cash on his person, the plastic bags in plain view, Corporal Shepherd's tip, the outstanding warrant for Turner's arrest, Tann's previous weapons conviction, and the cocaine and paraphernalia found on Holmes's person. For the same reasons, the State asserts that the officers had probable cause to search the Grand Marquis.
ANALYSIS The Traffic Stop
A traffic stop seizes a vehicle, invoking constitutional considerations. Delaware law requires that a traffic stop be supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, defined as the "ability to `point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant th[e] intrusion.'" A traffic violation creates probable cause for a traffic stop. In Whren v. U.S., the United States Supreme Court declared an officer's pretext to conduct a stop immaterial, so long as the officer has contemporaneous reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Similarly, the Delaware Supreme Court recognizes an officer's discretion in conducting a traffic stop and does not rely on an officer's actual, subjective motives to determine the reasonableness of an officer's course of conduct.Officer Golden witnessed Turner in the front passenger seat of the Grand Marquis with an unfastened seatbelt, in violation of 21 Del. C. § 4802(a)(2). These facts constitute a reasonable articulable suspicion that Tann, the driver, committed a traffic violation. Therefore, the officers had probable cause to conduct a traffic stop.
21 Del. C. § 4802(a)(2) ("The driver of a motor vehicle shall secure or cause to be secured in a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt system . . . each occupant of the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle who is 16 years of age or older.").
The Scope of the Traffic Stop
The scope of a traffic stop must be reasonable under the circumstances. Initially, "an investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop." "Once the officer has issued a citation or warning and has run routine computer checks, the vehicle must be released unless the driver voluntarily consents to further questioning or the officer uncovers facts that independently warrant additional investigation." Additional investigation, however, must be supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Caldwell, 780 A.2d at 1046; Hicks v. State, 631 A.2d 6, 10 (Del. 1993) ("[A] search which is minimally intrusive and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference passes constitutional muster").
Hicks, 631 A.2d at 10.
Caldwell, 780 A.2d at 1047 (citing Ferris v. State, 735 A.2d 491, 499 (Md. 1999)).
Id. at 1046-47.
At its outset, the scope of the traffic stop was limited to what was necessary to handle a seatbelt violation. At most, this required asking for identification, registration and proof of insurance, running a background check, and issuing a citation. In the course of those activities, the Officers initiated contact with the defendants, which aroused suspicion for these reasons: Tann was visibly nervous and his hands were shaking "uncontrollably" as characterized by Officer Golden; there was a box of small plastic bags (consistent with drug packaging) on the backseat of the vehicle; Turner reported that he had $700 cash on his person (consistent with dealing in drugs); and Corporal Shepherd had tipped the Officers that a white Mercury Grand Marquis would be involved in drug activity. At this point in time, the Officers had reasonable suspicion that the defendants were involved in drug-related activity.
Escalating the officers' suspicion, Officer Golden learned that that there was an outstanding warrant for Turner's arrest and that Tann had a previous weapons conviction. Further, Tann reached underneath the driver's seat immediately before he was asked to step outside the vehicle — behavior consistent with concealing contraband. Finally, the officers found cocaine and paraphernalia on Holmes's person. At the minimum, these circumstances amounted to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, warranting the extended detention of the defendants outside the vehicle. The Officers proceeded with reasonable suspicion throughout the traffic stop. The Court finds that scope of the traffic stop was reasonable.
The Search of the Grand Marquis
An officer who has probable cause to believe there are drugs in a vehicle may search any part of that vehicle in which evidence of the crime may be found. If probable cause exists, a search warrant is unnecessary.
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1721-22 (2009) (citing United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-821 (1982)).
Id.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Officers had probable cause to believe that there were narcotics in the Grand Marquis, specifically: Corporal Shepherd's tip; Tann's nervous behavior; the plastic bags in plain view; the $695 cash found on Turner's person; Tann's abrupt movement toward the space underneath his seat; and the cocaine and paraphernalia found on Holmes's person. The warrantless search of the Grand Marquis was supported by probable cause. Therefore, the evidence found in the Grand Marquis must not be suppressed.
CONCLUSION
Defendants' vehicle was properly stopped upon reasonable articulable suspicion of a traffic violation. The front seat passenger was not wearing a seat belt. The scope of the stop was reasonable under the circumstances. The police officers had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle.
THEREFORE, Defendants' Motions to Suppress the evidence found in the Grand Marquis are hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.