Title: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 110, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 7, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
MERL LOFLAND, 
 
 
 
§ 
§ 
No. 110, 2003 
Defendant Below,  
§ 
Appellant, 
 
 
§ 
§ 
5. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below: Superior Court 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
 
§ 
in and for New Castle County 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
Cr. I.D. No. 0209003846 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 12, 2003 
Decided: October 7, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 7th day of October, 2003, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, 
it appears to the Court that: 
1) Merl Lofland appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, of forgery second 
degree and criminal impersonation.  Lofland argues that the trial court erred in denying his 
motion to suppress the statements he gave to the police, in which Lofland identified 
himself as Roger Bungy. 
2) Shortly after midnight on September 5, 2002, Wilmington Police Officer Donald 
Witte spotted Lofland and another man standing by the passenger side of a white minivan 
on Bowers Street, a well-known drug area in Wilmington, Delaware.  One of the men 
was leaning inside the van.  When Witte approached, the men immediately started 
 
 
2 
walking in opposite directions.  Lofland headed toward a nearby housing project, but 
Witte blocked Lofland’s path with his police car. 
3) Witte thought that Lofland’s behavior was consistent with drug activity, so Witte 
ordered him to stop and place his hands on the police car for a weapons pat down search. 
 When Witte asked Lofland for his name, Lofland gave the name Roger Bungy.  Witte 
issued Lofland a summons for loitering, which Lofland signed with the name Bungy. 
4) Witte later became suspicious about Lofland’s identity, and went to Bungy’s 
residence.  After talking with Bungy’s mother, Witte called Bungy at work.  Bungy told 
Witte that his friend, Merl Lofland, had just called and told Bungy that he had used his 
name when stopped by the police in order to avoid being arrested for two outstanding 
capiases.  Witte followed up on the information he had been given and determined that 
the person he stopped, who claimed to be Bungy, was Lofland. 
5) Lofland moved to suppress his false identification on the ground that Witte had 
no reasonable suspicion that Lofland had committed a crime and no probable cause to 
arrest him for loitering.  The trial court held a suppression hearing and concluded that 
Witte had an articulable suspicion to stop Lofland pursuant to 11 Del.C. §1902(a).  We 
agree.   
6)  Witte knew that Bowers Street was a drug trafficking area, and he saw Lofland 
engaged in conduct that was “consistent with drug activity.”  When pressed about the 
 
 
3 
significance of what he observed (two men next to a minivan with one man’s head leaned 
into the passenger side of the car), Witte explained: 
“They have what they call touters out there in Riverside. What happens is 
that the touters approach the vehicle, find out what the people want, go out 
into the courtyards to get from the dealer – that’s the way it’s done in 
Riverside.”     
 
Given Witte’s knowledge of the way drug deals were done in that neighborhood, his 
observation of Lofland’s conduct was enough to create a reasonable and articulable 
suspicion that Lofland was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs.1 
7) Lofland also argues that Witte lacked probable cause to arrest him for loitering.  
That argument is moot, however, since Lofland was acquitted of the loitering charge. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court 
be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
                                                 
1Jones v. State, 745 A.2d 856 (Del. 1999).