Opinion
ID No. 0811018072.
Decided: May 14, 2009.
ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 14 th day of May, 2009, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant Bobby Taylor ("Taylor") has filed a motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of an unconstitutional seizure and search. The State contends in opposition that Taylor was lawfully seized and searched incident to arrest. This is the Court's decision on Taylor's motion.
2. In a motion to suppress, the Court is the trier of fact. If the Court finds the evidence presented in conflict, as in the instant record, it is the Court's duty to reconcile these conflicts, if reasonably possible to make one harmonious story.
See State v. Smith, 2009 WL 597267 (Del.Super., Feb. 18, 2009).
3. The facts of this case are very much in conflict. At the suppression hearing, three witnesses testified, each with a differing account of the events leading to Taylor's arrest. In attempting to reconcile the conflicting testimony, the Court is left with many unanswered questions about what happened during Taylor's encounter with a state trooper in uniform. With so many questions left unanswered, the Court is unable find that the State has met its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Taylor's seizure and search were lawful.
4. Taylor was "seized" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment when the trooper pushed him to the ground. Such a display of authority from a uniformed police officer would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he was free to disregard the officer and go about his business.
See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968) (holding that a seizure occurs when a police officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.).
4. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court is unable to find that the trooper had reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify the seizure. As the Court sees it, on the night Taylor was arrested, he was attempting to enter the New Castle Market. The market was open for business and Taylor intended on making a purchase. He was lawfully at the market and there appears no reason for the trooper to prevent him from entering.
Taylor told the trooper at the hospital that he was at the market to buy a blunt. Hr'g Tr. 59:22 — 60:4.
5. The State contends that Taylor prevented the trooper from conducting an investigation. The Court finds this characterization a stretch. The trooper was not at the market to investigate a crime. He was attempting to locate the owner of a car left running in the parking lot. There was no need to secure the scene or keep patrons, like Taylor, from entering the market. Furthermore, the trooper is unable to recall any details of this investigation. He cannot recall whether he was talking to a male or a female or whether the individual was entering or leaving the store.
6. The State contends that Taylor failed to obey the trooper's command to back away. When Taylor bumped into the trooper, the trooper told him, "what does it look I'm doing here, buying a pack of cigarettes?" This is a casual statement that does not imply that the trooper is conducting official police business. Taylor was lawfully at the market therefore the trooper's demand that he leave the area is not justified under the circumstances.
7. The Court is also not convinced that Taylor intentionally bumped into the trooper. The fact that Taylor was carrying marijuana and cocaine on his person at the time makes it unlikely that he would intentionally rouse the attention of uniformed police officer. Furthermore, the trooper testified that he had no intention of arresting Taylor for bumping into him. He testified that he "didn't want anything really to do with him. It wasn't his car."
Hr'g Tr. 11:17-21.
Id. at 8:17-19.
7. The Court remains uncertain about what happened the night of Taylor's arrest. What is clear is that upon pushing Taylor to the ground, the trooper seized Taylor for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The State has failed, however, to show by a preponderance of the evidence, that the seizure was lawful. Accordingly, Taylor's motion is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.