Opinion ID: 2318754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Miller's Contention

Text: At the hearing on his motion to suppress, the Superior Court, Miller initially argued that the police did not have a reasonable articulable suspicion to support his detention. In addition to that contention, Miller now also argues on appeal that the Superior Court erred by not engaging in a probable cause analysis to determine the appropriateness of his seizure. In support of his probable cause argument, Miller relies on the holdings in Draper v. United States [3] and Tatman v. State . [4] In Draper, the United States Supreme Court held that Draper's arrest was supported by probable cause and, therefore, the search incident to his arrest was also lawful. [5] In Tatman, this Court held that Tatman's warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause and the search of his vehicle was in accordance with the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. [6] The facts and holdings in Draper and Tatman are not applicable in Miller's case. The issue to be decided in this appeal is whether Miller's seizure was proper, not whether there was probable cause for his arrest ( Draper ) and not whether the warrantless search of his vehicle ( Tatman ) was justified. The Superior Court correctly determined that Miller was seized at the time his vehicle was blocked in by the officers. [7] Accordingly, this Court must determine, as the Superior Court did, whether Miller's seizure was supported by a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity.