IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR K

ENT COUNTY

STATE OF DELA WARE, : : ID NO. 1405009437 v. : : MICHAEL R. HUDGINS, : : Defendant. :

Submitted: June 17, 2 015 Decided : July 1, 2015
Upon Con sideration of Defe ndant’s Motion to S uppress GRANTED

ORDER
Gregory R. Ba

bowal, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware for the State of Delaware.
P. Scott Wilson, Esquire, Law O ffice of P. Scot t Wilson, Dover, Delaw are for Defendant.

Young, J.State v. Hud gins Case I.D. No. 1405009437 July 1, 2015

2 DECISION Defenda ntHudgins has moved

to suppress all eviden ce obtaine d by the State in the course of an unwarranted stop of Defendant’s vehicle. Atabout 10 :20 p.m., May 12, 2014 , D e fendant and Officer Ballinger were

o peratingvehicles i n opposite dir ections, comin g toward e ach other , on S tevenso n Drive, in Kent County, Delawar e. Stevenson Drive is a relatively narrow, residential road, on which some parking on each side of the road existed. Stevenson Drive has no center l ine marked. Officer Ballinger noted Defendant “com ing toward ” him, w it h at lea st so me portionof Defendant’s v ehicle le ft of the (unmar ked) cen ter o f th e roa dway. Prior to the creation

of any dangerous proxim

ity w ith Offi cer Bal linger’ s vehicle, Defenda nt, by Of fi cer Bal linger’ s descript ion, “ correct

ed” the sit

uation, w ithout a dang er of collision. Defendant then “waved” at O fficer B allin ger. Officer Ballinger then had Defendant pull over and come to a stop. During this tim e, Office r Ballinge

r was on patrolin a “ high c rime ar ea” lookingfor signs of crim inal activ ity, prima

rily d rug activity, but specifical ly not incid ents of in toxicated driving

. Defenda ntwas ultim

ately charged b y Of

ficer B allinger w ith violatio ns of 21 Del. Code § 4199(A) (which w as not indicted) and 21 Del. C

ode § 4114, dri ving on the wrong s ide of the ro ad (which was)

. The actions of

Defenda nt did not give

rise to a legitimate stop by the State. Driving toward th e center of a narr ow residential road, particularly at a dark tim

e of night, witha constant

concern f

or activit ies from either si de, is not a

t all unusua

l, so long as the “ correct

ion” is made in due

time, which it was here. S imila rly, a wave t

oState v. Hud gins Case I.D. No. 1405009437 July 1, 2015

3 an on-coming vehicle after the correction could be no m ore than the acknow ledgment of the circumstan ce. To an experienced officer , such as O fficer Ballinger , a sense

or feeling of intoxica

ted driving may

well have

arisen – a

nd, for th at ma

tt e r, proba

bly would h ave turne d ou t to be accurate. However, in the event of such an educated suspicion of intoxicated driving, the appropriate measurewould have been to follow the vehic le further, in order to see if any articulab le irregul arities de veloped. Given the situati on, thesto p was not supportable. Because of that det ermi natio n, any possible Rodriguez v . U.S. , 575 U.S. _____ (2015), issues concernin g the timing between the Ballinger stop and the Digati DUI procedures nee d not to be addressed , though t hey may well be significan t in this case. Defenda nt’s Moti on to Suppre ss is GRANTED

. IT IS SO ORDERED

.

/s/ Rober t B. Youn g J. RBY/lmc oc: Prothonotary cc: Counsel Opinion Di stribution File