State of Delaware v. Morris. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •       IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                   :
    :     ID NO. 1501019740
    v.                       :
    :
    DAVID K. MORRIS,                     :
    :
    Defendant.         :
    Submitted: June 18, 2015
    Decided: June 22, 2015
    Upon Consideration of Defendant’s
    Motion to Suppress
    GRANTED
    ORDER
    David B. Snyder, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,
    Dover, Delaware for the State of Delaware.
    J’Aime L. Walker, Esquire, Office of the Public Defender, Dover, Delaware for
    Defendant.
    Young, J.
    State v. Morris
    Case I.D. No. 1501019740
    June 22, 2015
    SUMMARY
    Defendant has moved to have suppressed the results of an intoxilyzer test on
    two bases: there was no reasonable, articulable basis for the stop of Defendant in the
    first place; and, following the stop and field testing, there was no probable cause to
    pursue the intoxilyzer test. Because the Court finds the former, Defendant’s motion
    is GRANTED.
    FACTS
    On January 31, 2015, Officer Perna of the Harrington Police Department
    noticed Defendant operating his vehicle in a manner that drew the officer’s suspicion.
    Specifically, Defendant was observed traveling northbound on U.S. 13 in Kent
    County, Delaware, entering the turn lane, going southbound on 13, entering the turn
    lane, and repeating the whole process at least one more time. While on the
    (unspecified as to distance) straight away segments, the Defendant was believed to
    be “revving” his motor. No calculation of speed was made.
    The State takes the position that the officer had a reasonable, articulable basis
    to suspect Defendant of driving under the influence, and to stop Defendant for a
    violation of 21 Del. Code § 4172 “speed exhibitions.”
    The defense notes that no calculation of speed was ever made; that no other
    vehicle (to race, compete against, “drag,” or accelerate against) existed; that no
    notation of wheel spinning was noted; that, each time Defendant changed directions,
    he did so by activating his turn signal and properly entering the turn area of the
    highway; and that Defendant was never charged with a violation of § 4172 or other
    traffic violation.
    2
    State v. Morris
    Case I.D. No. 1501019740
    June 22, 2015
    While Defendant’s chosen driving pattern was unusual, it did not constitute any
    violation.
    CONCLUSION
    There being no reasonable, articulable reason to effect a traffic stop of
    Defendant, no testing for alcohol can be said to be valid.
    Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is GRANTED.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    /s/ Robert B. Young
    J.
    RBY/lmc
    oc: Prothonotary
    cc: Counsel
    Opinion Distribution
    File
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1501019740

Judges: Young

Filed Date: 6/22/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/24/2015