IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

STATE OF DELAWARE, :

: ID NO. 1405009437

v. :

:

MICHAEL R. HUDGINS, :

:

Defendant. : 

Submitted: June 17, 2015 

Decided: July 1, 2015

Upon Consideration of Defendant’s 

Motion to Suppress

GRANTED

ORDER

Gregory R. Babowal, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,

Dover, Delaware for the State of Delaware. 

P. Scott Wilson, Esquire, Law Office of P. Scott Wilson, Dover, Delaware for

Defendant. 

Young, J. 
State v. Hudgins

Case I.D. No. 1405009437

July 1, 2015 

2

DECISION

Defendant Hudgins has moved to suppress all evidence obtained by the State

in the course of an unwarranted stop of Defendant’s vehicle.

At about 10:20 p.m., May 12, 2014, Defendant and Officer Ballinger were

operating vehicles in opposite directions, coming toward each other, on Stevenson

Drive, in Kent County, Delaware. Stevenson Drive is a relatively narrow, residential

road, on which some parking on each side of the road existed. Stevenson Drive has

no center line marked. 

Officer Ballinger noted Defendant “coming toward” him, with at least some

portion of Defendant’s vehicle left of the (unmarked) center of the roadway. Prior to

the creation of any dangerous proximity with Officer Ballinger’s vehicle, Defendant,

by Officer Ballinger’s description, “corrected” the situation, without a danger of

collision. Defendant then “waved” at Officer Ballinger. Officer Ballinger then had

Defendant pull over and come to a stop. During this time, Officer Ballinger was on

patrol in a “high crime area” looking for signs of criminal activity, primarily drug

activity, but specifically not incidents of intoxicated driving. 

Defendant was ultimately charged by Officer Ballinger with violations of 21

Del. Code § 4199(A) (which was not indicted) and 21 Del. Code § 4114, driving on

the wrong side of the road (which was). 

The actions of Defendant did not give rise to a legitimate stop by the State.

Driving toward the center of a narrow residential road, particularly at a dark time of

night, with a constant concern for activities from either side, is not at all unusual, so

long as the “correction” is made in due time, which it was here. Similarly, a wave to
State v. Hudgins

Case I.D. No. 1405009437

July 1, 2015 

3

an on-coming vehicle after the correction could be no more than the acknowledgment

of the circumstance. To an experienced officer, such as Officer Ballinger, a sense or

feeling of intoxicated driving may well have arisen – and, for that matter, probably

would have turned out to be accurate. However, in the event of such an educated

suspicion of intoxicated driving, the appropriate measure would have been to follow

the vehicle further, in order to see if any articulable irregularities developed. 

Given the situation, the stop was not supportable. Because of that

determination, any possible Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. _____ (2015), issues

concerning the timing between the Ballinger stop and the Digati DUI procedures need

not to be addressed, though they may well be significant in this case. 

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Robert B. Young 

 J.

RBY/lmc 

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Counsel 

Opinion Distribution

File