Opinion ID: 4469561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Small’s motion to suppress

Text: Small was charged with being a felon in possession of a gun and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He moved to suppress the evidence from the searches and the statements he made to police after they stopped his car. United States v. Small, No. 1:17-cr-00027-001, 2018 WL 2049821, at  (D. Del. May 2, 2018) He argued that the traffic stop was illegal because “the officers could not have seen the windshield crack as they drove past” his car. Id. After a suppression hearing, the District Court denied Small’s motion. Id. at . It found the officers’ testimony credible and explained that the government had “specific, articulable facts to justify a belief that Small was violating a traffic law at the time of the stop” because his windshield was cracked. Id. at . 4 Small conditionally pleaded guilty, reserving his right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, he again argues that the officers could not have seen the windshield crack when driving by, so they lacked reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. We review the District Court’s finding of reasonable suspicion de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 691 (1996).