AARON WATSON, Defendant.
Cr. A. No. 1708007546
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Submitted: December 21, 2017
January 3, 2018
Ryan Bounds, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State of Delaware.
Christina L. Ruggiero, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant.
toward the sidewalk, and another individual eventually picked the object up. At approximately 12:45 P.M.2 officers arrived to the scene. As the officers arrived the 10th and Pine camera showed Defendant walking away from the officers. An officer ordered Defendant to stop and Defendant subsequently fled from the officer.3
necessary to survive a motion to suppress, the State must show specific facts which, when taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the stop.”8
Defendant argues that the officers did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to stop, and subsequently probable cause to arrest, Defendant. However, based on the totality of the circumstances the Court finds that the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop Defendant. As the two videos depict, over the course of an hour detectives observed activity around the 1016 N. Pine Street residence. At the suppression hearing Detective Silvers testified that based on his training and experience the activity was consistent with drug dealing. This included the exchange of small objects and money between numerous individuals, and Defendant appeared to be a participant. Under Delaware law, “[l]awful and apparently innocent behavior may be meaningless to the untrained but still raise reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking in the eyes of a reasonable, prudent, and experienced police officer.”9 Thus, plausible innocent explanations for the behavior the detectives observed does not negate reasonable articulable suspicion that the individuals, including Defendant, were conducting drug transactions on August 11. Based on the Detectives’ testimony at the suppression hearing, their level of training
and experience, and the evidence on the two cameras, the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop Defendant. Defendant’s motion to suppress is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Honorable Calvin L. Scott, Jr.
1. This time stamp and depiction is from the Sherman and Lombard camera.
2. This is depicted on the 10th and Pine camera.
3. The is depicted on the Sherman and Lombard camera.
4. West v. State, 143 A.3d 712, 715 (Del. 2016).
5. Id. at 716. See also Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280, 1286-87 (Del. 2008).
6. West, 143 A.3d at 716.
7. Id. at 717.
8. Lopez-Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1287 (internal quotations omitted).
9. Harris v. State, 806 A.2d 119, 121 (Del. 2002).