IN THE SUPREM E COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAW ARE

ANDREA HARRISON, §

§ No . 4 8 7 , 2 0 1 5

Defen d an t Bel o w- §

Ap p el l an t

, § Co u rt Bel o w: Su p eri o r Co u rt

§ o f t h e St at e o f Del aware

v

. §

§ ID No . 1 4 0 6 0 12 9 26

STATE OF DELAW

ARE, §

§

Pl ai n t i ff Bel o w- §

Ap p el l ee. §

Su b m i t t ed : J u ne 1 5 , 2 01 6

D eci d ed : J u l y

8 , 2 01 6

Befo re STRI NE , Ch ief J us t ice; VALI HURA an d VAUGHN , J u s ti ces

.

Up o n ap peal fro m

t h e Su p eri o r Co u rt

. A FFI RMED

.

M ary An n M cLan e Det wei l er, Es q u i re, Offi ce o f t h e Pu b l i c Defen d er, W il m i n g t o n,

Del aware, fo r Ap p el lan t

.

Karen V. Su l l i v an

, Dep u t y At to rn ey Gen eral

, Dep art m en t o f J u s t i ce, W il m i n g t o n,

Del aware, fo r Ap p el lee.

VAUGHN , J u s ti ce:Defen d an t -Bel o w/ Ap p el l an t

, A n d rea Harri s o n

, ap p eal s fro m a Su peri o r Co u rt

b en ch ru l i n g wh i ch d en ied h er m o ti o n t o su p pres s ev i d en ce o b t ai n ed d u ri n g a t raffi c

s t op

. 1

On J u n e 1 7

, 2 0 1 4

, Del aware St at e Po l i ce Co rp o ral Eri c Hu s t o n was on p at ro l

wh en h e ob s erv ed a t an Bu i ck Cen t u ry cro s s U.S. Ro u t e 1 3 o n Baco n Av en u e i n New

Cas tl e Co u nt y

. He ch eck ed t h e v eh i cl e’ s reg i s t rat i o n an d l earn ed t h at t h e v eh i cl e was

reg i s tered t o a w o m an w i t h a s u s p en d ed l i cen s e. He al s o l earn ed t h at t h e o wn er was

a wh i te fem al e an d ap pro xi m at el y fo rt y y ears o l d

. Th e d ri v er o f t h e v eh icl e l o o k ed

t o Co rp o ral Hu s t o n t o b e a wh i t e fem al e ab o u t fo rt y y ears o l d

. Th i n k i n g t h at t h e

d ri v e r w a s t h e o wn er, Co rp o ral Hu s to n s t o pp ed t h e v eh i cl e. It t u rn ed o u t t h at t h e

d ri v er was n o t t h e o wn er, bu t Harri so n

, wh o h a d b o r r o wed t h e v eh i cl e fro m t h e

o wn er. A ft er Co rp o ral Hu s t o n l earn ed Harri so n ’ s i d en t i ty

, h e fo u n d t h at her d ri v er’ s

l i cen se was al s o s u s p en d ed an d s h e was t h e s u b j ect o f an o u t s t a n d i n g warran t

. He

t o o k h er i n to cu s t o d y

, an d aft er a s earch o f t h e v eh i cl e, sh e w as ch arg ed wi t h Dri v i n g

wi t h a Su s p en d ed Li cen se, 2 Po s s es s i o n o f M a r i j u an a, 3 fo u r co u n t s o f Po s s es s i o n o f

a Co n t ro l l ed Su b s t an ce, 4 an d En d an g eri n g t h e W el fare o f a Ch i l d. 5

1 Appellant’s Op. B r., Ex . A.

2 21 Del. C. § 2756(a).

3 16 Del. C. § 4764(a).

4 16 Del. C. § 4763(c).

5 11 Del. C. § 1102(a)(1).

1In No v em b er 2 0 1 4, Harri s o n fi led a m o t i o n t o s u p p res s t h e ev i d en ce co l l ect ed

d u r i n g t h e s earch o f t h e v eh i cl e. A h eari n g was h el d o n t h e m o t i o n

, an d at i t s

co n cl u s i o n

, t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t he m o t io n fro m t h e ben ch

. Th e t ri al co u rt h el d t h at

o n t he fact s as Co rp o ral Hu s t o n reas on ab l y b el i ev ed t h em t o b e, h e h ad a reas o n ab l e

an d art i cu l ab le s u sp i ci o n t h at t he v eh i cl e’ s reg i st ered o w n er was i n fact d ri v i n g s i nce

Harri s o n m at ch ed t h e o wn er’ s d es cri p t io n

. Harri s on was s u b s eq u en t ly co n vi ct ed o f

al l ch arg es ex cep t En d an g eri n g t h e W el fare o f a Ch i l d

. 6 Th i s ap p eal fo ll o wed

.

Harri s o n co n t en d s t h at Co rp o ral Hu s t o n di d n o t h av e a reas o n a b l e an d

art i cu l ab l e s us p i ci o n t h at s h e w as dri v i n g o n a s us p en d ed l i cen s e, an d t h e t raffi c s t o p

t h erefo re v io l at ed h er Fo u rt h Am en d m en t ri g h t to b e free fro m u n reas o n ab l e s earch es

a n d s ei zu res

. In o t h er wo rd s

, s h e cl ai m s t h at h er Fo u rt h Am en d m en t ri g h t s w e r e

v i o l at ed wh en sh e was s t o p p ed fo r m erel y m at ch i n g t h e d es cri p t i o n o f t h e v eh i cl e’ s

reg i s tered o wn er.

“ [W h en ] rev iewi n g t h e d en ial o f [a] m o t i o n t o s up p res s ev id en ce b as ed o n an

al l eg ed l y i l l eg al s t o p an d s ei zu re, we co n d u ct a de n o vo rev i ew t o d et erm i n e wh et h er

t h e t o t al i t y o f t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

, i n l ig h t o f t h e t ri al ju d g e’ s fact u al fi n d i ng s

, s u p p o rt

a reas o n ab l e a n d a r t i c u l ab l e s u s p ici o n fo r t he st o p

. ” 7 “ In o rd er t o s at i s fy t h e

6 F or reasons not relevant to this appeal, the State nolle prosequi this charg e at the end of trial.

7 Lopez-Vazquez v. State , 956 A.2d 1280, 1285 (Del. 2008).

2reas on ab l e an d art icu l ab l e s t an d ard

, t h e o ffi cer m u s t p o i n t t o s p eci fi c fact s

, wh i ch

v i ewed i n t h ei r en ti ret y an d acco m p a nie d by r a tio n al i n feren ces

, s up p o rt t h e s u s p i ci o n

t h at t h e p ers o n s o u g h t t o be d et ai n ed was i n t h e pro ces s o f v i o l at in g t h e l aw.” 8 “ Th e

t o t al i t y o f ci rcu m s t an ces

, as v i ewed t h ro u g h th e ey es o f a reas o n ab l e, t rai n ed o ffi cer

i n t h e s am e or s im i lar ci rc u m s t a n ces

, m u s t b e ex am i n ed b y bo t h t h e t ri al ju d g e an d

ap p el l at e co u rt s to det erm in e if reas o nab le s u s p i ci o n h as b een p ro p erl y fo rm u l at ed

. ” 9

Harri s o n’ s cl ai m h as n o m eri t

. Co rp o ral Hu s t on t es t i fi ed th at w h en h e ran t h e

v eh icl e’ s reg i s t rat i o n n um b er, h e l earn ed t h at t h e o wn er’ s l i cen s e was s u s p en d ed

. He

al s o l earn ed t h at t he o w n er was an ap pro x i m at el y fo rt y -y ear o l d

, wh it e wo m an . As

h e co n ti n u ed fo l l o w i n g t he v eh i cl e, h e d et erm in ed t h at t h e dri v er m et t h at d es cri p t i o n.

Th e fact t h at th e d ri v er t u rn ed o u t t o b e Harri so n an d n o t t h e o wn er i s i rrel ev an t

b ecau s e t h at fact was n ot k no w n t o Co rp o ral Hu s t o n at th e t i m e h e i n i t i at ed t h e s t o p.

It i s cl ear fro m th e reco rd t h at Co rp o ral Hu s to n h ad a reas o n a b l e an d art i cu l ab l e

s u s p i ci on t h at Harri s o n was t h e v eh icl e’ s reg i s t ered o wn er an d dri v i n g o n a

s u s p en d ed l i cen s e. Th erefo re, th e t ri al co u rt d id n o t ab u s e h i s d i s cret i o n o r co m m i t

l eg al erro r wh en i t d en i ed Harri s o n ’ s m o t i o n t o s u p pres s

.

Fo r t h es e reas on s , t h e Su p eri o r Co urt ’ s ju d g m en t o f co n vi ct i o n i s affi rm ed

.

8 Riley v. State , 892 A.2d 370, 374 (Del. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

9 Id.

3