Opinion ID: 1914449
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Lofland Precedent

Text: Here, the trial judge recited these legal standards before addressing the facts of Hall's case. In applying these legal standards to the facts of Hall's case, the trial judge relied primarily on this Court's analysis in Lofland v. State. [12] We conclude that the trial judge properly relied on this Court's decision in Lofland when he held that the police had reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain Hall. In Lofland, a Wilmington police officer observed the defendant and another man standing by the passenger side of a minivan on a street well-known as a drug area. One of the men was leaning inside the window of the van. [13] When the officer approached, the men immediately started walking in opposite directions. [14] The defendant walked toward a nearby housing project but the officer blocked the defendant's path with his police car. [15] The officer testified at the defendant's trial that he believed the defendant's behavior was consistent with drug activity. [16] Specifically, the officer testified that the defendant's behavior in Lofland was consistent with that of a touter, who approaches vehicles in the neighborhood, takes drug orders, and then goes and obtains the drugs from a nearby location to deliver to the purchaser. [17] In Lofland, we held that the stop of the defendant was reasonable under the circumstances. We explained that, [g]iven [the police officer's] knowledge of the way drug deals were done in that neighborhood, his observation of [the defendant's] conduct was enough to create a reasonable and articulable suspicion that [the defendant] was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. [18]