Title: Bease v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROOSEVELT H. BEASE, 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   No. 105, 2005 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   Court Below – Superior Court 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   in and for New Castle County 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§   Cr.A. No. IN03-10-0048 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
   Submitted:  September 14, 2005 
 
 
 
 
      Decided:  September 29, 2005 
 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED.   
 
Joseph A. Hurley, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellant. 
 
John Williams, Esquire, Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware, for 
appellee.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOLLAND, Justice: 
 
 
-2-
 
The defendant-below, appellant, Roosevelt H. Bease, appeals from his 
judgments of conviction in the Superior Court for Driving a Vehicle Under 
the Influence of Alcohol as a fourth offense, Driving While License Was 
Suspended, and Improper Lane Change.  The sole issue raised by Bease in 
this appeal relates to his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of 
Alcohol.   
Bease contends that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to 
suppress the results of an intoxilyzer test.  Bease argues that the police 
officer who stopped him for the Improper Lane Change did not have 
probable cause to administer the intoxilyzer test, in violation of Del. Code 
Ann. tit. 21, § 2740(a).  Therefore, Bease submits the intoxilyzer test 
constituted an impermissible warrantless search and the results of that test 
were inadmissible as evidence.     
We have concluded the Superior Court correctly determined that, 
under the totality of the circumstances, the police officer had probable cause 
to administer an intoxilyzer test.  Therefore, Bease’s motion to suppress was 
properly denied.  Consequently, the judgments of the Superior Court are 
affirmed.   
 
 
-3-
Facts 
At approximately 8:25 a.m., on August 28, 2003, near the intersection 
of Interstate 95 and Delaware Route 1, Delaware State Police Trooper 
Penrod observed a black 1999 Ford Expedition SUV “abruptly travel from 
the right straight lane into the turn lane for Interstate 95, forcing multiple 
vehicles that were already in that lane to rapidly decelerate.”  The Ford 
Expedition “then crossed the solid white line, which is not designated for 
lane deviation, and into the right travel lane for Interstate 95.”  Signaling by 
hand, Trooper Penrod directed Bease, the driver, to stop the Ford 
Expedition.  Bease complied. 
Penrod approached Bease and stood approximately two feet from him.  
As he spoke to Bease, Penrod “detected an odor of alcoholic beverage 
emanating from his breath.”  Bease told Trooper Penrod that he had 
consumed some chardonnay or beer the night before.  Penrod did not 
observe anything unusual about Bease’s speech except that he was speaking 
rapidly.  Penrod did notice that Bease’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy.   
When asked for his driver’s license, Bease was unable to produce one.  
Consequently, Trooper Penrod returned to his vehicle and ran a DELJIS 
computer search that revealed an outstanding Rule 9 warrant for Bease’s 
arrest, and that Bease was driving during revocation or suspension of his 
 
 
-4-
license.  Penrod advised Bease that he was under arrest, handcuffed him and 
took him into custody.  Bease then took a Portable Breathalyzer Test (PBT), 
which he failed.   
Penrod subsequently transported Bease to Delaware State Police 
Troop 6, where he questioned him about his educational level and medical 
history.  Bease stated that he had a full twelve years of education.  Because 
Bease had physical limitations, Penrod did not administer any physical 
agility tests.  Penrod did administer an alphabet test and the horizontal gaze 
nystagamus (HGN) test.  Bease failed the alphabet test.  
Penrod is NHTSA-certified to administer the HGN test.  According to 
Penrod’s testimony, if an examinee manifests four of six clues during the 
test, there is a 77 percent chance that the person’s blood alcohol content is 
0.10 percent or higher.  On that basis Penrod found that Bease failed the 
HGN test.  Penrod then administered the intoxilyzer test at issue in this 
appeal, which indicated that Bease’s blood alcohol content was 0.103 
percent.1 
                                          
 
1 The blood alcohol content limit in Delaware was .10 percent at that time.  It is now .08.  
Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4177(a)(4) (2005).  See generally H.B. 111, 142nd Gen. Assem. 
(Del. 2004) (replacing “.10” in Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4177(a)(4) with “.08”). 
 
 
-5-
Procedural History 
A grand jury indicted Bease for the offenses of Driving a Vehicle 
Under the Influence of Alcohol, Driving While License Was Suspended, and 
Improper Lane Change.  Bease entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.  
Bease filed a Motion to Suppress in January 2004, and an amended Motion 
to Suppress in February 2004.2  After conducting a pre-trial suppression 
hearing, the Superior Court denied Bease’s motion.  Trial began on January 
11, 2005 and Bease was found guilty of all charges.  Bease received a 
sentence of six months mandatory incarceration.  He filed a timely notice of 
appeal in this Court.   
Probable Cause Standard 
When a person operates a motor vehicle in Delaware, he or she is 
deemed by statute to have given consent to chemical tests, including a test of 
the breath to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs.3  This testing may 
be required of a person when a police officer has probable cause to believe 
that the person was driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.4  
                                          
 
2 Bease’s original January 9, 2004 Motion to Suppress did not address the results of the 
intoxilyzer test.  He amended his Motion on February 9, 2004 to include a request to 
suppress those results. 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 2740(a) (2005). 
4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 2740(b) (2005); Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4177(a)(1) (2005).  
The testing of the breath for the presence of alcohol or drugs has been recognized as a 
search and, therefore, subject to Fourth Amendment requirements and protections.  
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767 (1966).   
 
 
-6-
Probable cause is determined by the totality of the circumstances and 
requires a showing of a probability that criminal activity is occurring or has 
occurred.5  Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within 
the police officer’s knowledge, and of which the police officer had 
reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a 
person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being 
committed.6   
Superior Court Decision 
In this case, the State bears the burden of establishing that there was 
probable cause of driving under the influence of alcohol to require Bease to 
submit to an intoxilyzer test.  The Superior Court found that Trooper Penrod 
had probable cause to administer an intoxilyzer test to Bease.  In its analysis, 
the Superior Court considered:  Bease’s abrupt driving movement, the odor 
of alcohol on his breath, his glassy and bloodshot eyes, and his admission to 
having consumed beer or chardonnay the night before.   
The Superior Court concluded that the foregoing evidence was 
sufficient to establish probable cause to administer the intoxilyzer test.   The 
Superior Court specifically declined to weigh the results of failing either the 
                                          
 
5 State v. Maxwell, 624 A.2d 926, 928 (Del. 1993).   
6 Id. at 930 (citing Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76 (1949)).   
 
 
-7-
portable breathalyzer test or the HGN test in performing its probable cause 
analysis.  The Superior Court denied Bease’s motion to suppress.   
Prior Delaware Precedents 
The Superior Court’s finding of probable cause is consistent with this 
Court’s prior precedents.  In State v. Maxwell,7 this Court reversed the 
granting of a motion to suppress the results of a blood test for the presence 
of alcohol.  In Maxwell, probable cause to administer the test was present, 
based on:  the evidence showing an admission of prior drinking; the 
presence of an odor of alcohol; beer cans in and near the overturned vehicle; 
the police officer’s observation that the defendant’s eyes were “a little 
glassy;” and, that he appeared dazed to one witness.8  In Perrera v. State,9 
this Court affirmed a finding of probable cause where a police officer 
stopped the defendant for a traffic violation, and observed that:  she had 
bloodshot and glassy eyes; she smelled of alcohol; admitted to drinking two 
beers; beer cans were visible on the floor of her car; she failed the alphabet 
and counting field sobriety tests; and, she failed the portable breathalyzer 
tests.10   
                                          
 
7 State v. Maxwell, 624 A.2d 926 (Del. 1993). 
8 Id. at 930-31.   
9 Perrera v. State, 852 A.2d 908, 2004 WL 1535815 (Del. June 25, 2004). 
10 Id. at **1.  
 
 
-8-
The Superior Court’s ruling in this case is also consistent with other 
Delaware decisions.  In Higgins v. Shahan,11 an accident combined with the 
defendant’s bloodshot and glassy eyes, the odor of alcohol emanating from 
the defendant, his admission of consuming alcoholic beverages and refusal 
to perform field tests were found to establish probable cause.12  In Silverman 
v. Shahan,13 the court reached a similar conclusion based upon:  the 
defendant’s erratic driving, his flushed face and bloodshot eyes, the strong 
odor of alcohol on his breath, his failure of the alphabet and counting tests, 
and his refusal to perform other field tests.   
Probable Cause Extant 
Bease was stopped initially for committing a traffic violation, an 
improper lane change, in violation of Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4122(1).14  It 
is undisputed that there was both a reasonable articulable suspicion to stop 
Bease’s motor vehicle and probable cause to issue a traffic citation to Bease 
for the improper lane change.15  Not only was the initial stop of Bease’s 
                                          
 
11 Higgins v. Shahan, C.A. No. 94A-06-0006, 1995 WL 108699 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 18, 
1995) (Lee, J.). 
12 Id. at *3. 
13 Silverman v. Shahan, No. Civ. A. 00-10-022, 2002 WL 31999363, at *2 (Del. Com. Pl. 
Jan. 2, 2002).  
14 That section provides:  “A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely 
within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first 
ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.”  
15 See Traylor v. State, 458 A.2d 1170, 1174 (Del. 1983); Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 703(a) 
and (b). 
 
 
-9-
motor vehicle by Trooper Penrod “justified at its inception by reasonable 
suspicion of criminal activity,”16 but the police officer’s approach of the 
motor vehicle and inquiry of the operator was reasonably related to the 
purpose of the motor vehicle stop.17   
 
Trooper Penrod testified that when he talked with Bease at the time of 
the admittedly proper motor vehicle stop, he “detected an odor of alcoholic 
beverage emanating from his breath when he spoke to me.”  Trooper Penrod 
was standing “approximately two feet” away from Bease when he smelled 
the alcoholic beverage odor.  When Penrod questioned Bease regarding 
alcohol consumption, Bease said “that he had some chardonnay or beer the 
night before.”  Trooper Penrod also noted that Bease’s “eyes appeared 
bloodshot and glassy.”  When asked to produce his driver’s license, Bease 
was unable to do so and Trooper Penrod observed that Bease was “speaking 
rapidly.”   
The Superior Court carefully considered all of the pertinent evidence 
in this case and acceded to the defense arguments that the failed PBT and 
HGN tests should not be considered.  Even excluding the failed PBT and 
                                          
 
16 Caldwell v. State, 780 A.2d 1037, 1046 (Del. 2001). 
17 Id.  See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498 (1983) (“[R]easonable suspicion of 
criminal activity warrants a temporary seizure for the purpose of questioning limited to 
the purpose of the stop.”).  See also Hicks v. State, 631 A.2d 6, 10 (Del. 1993). 
 
 
-10-
HGN testing results,18 the record reflects sufficient other evidence to 
establish probable cause for the administration of the intoxilyzer test and to 
admit the presumptive intoxication evidence disclosed by that scientific 
testing.  The record reflects that Bease spoke in a rapid manner to Trooper 
Penrod, smelled of alcohol, admitted that he consumed alcoholic beverages 
the night before, had bloodshot and glassy eyes, and had just committed a 
traffic violation by making an improper lane change in an abrupt manner. 
Based upon Trooper Penrod’s observations and the rational inferences 
drawn therefrom, there existed “a quantum of trustworthy factual 
information, ‘sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable 
caution’ to conclude that probable cause existed” to believe Bease was 
driving under the influence of alcohol at the time Trooper Penrod stopped 
him. 19  Accordingly, the Superior Court correctly concluded that the totality 
of circumstances was sufficient to establish probable cause to test Bease by 
an intoxilyzer.20  Consequently, Bease’s motion to suppress those test results 
was properly denied.   
Conclusion 
 
The judgments of the Superior Court are affirmed. 
                                          
 
18 The propriety of excluding that evidence is not an issue before us in this appeal. 
19 State v. Maxwell, 624 A.2d 926, 931 (Del. 1993) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Brinegar 
v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949)).   
20 Id.