Flowers v. State
| Decision Date | 27 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 52, 2018,52, 2018 |
| Parties | Ron FLOWERS, Defendant-Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff-Below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Bernard J. O'Donnell, Esquire, Office of the Public Defender, Wilmington, Delaware for the Appellant.
Andrew Vella, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellee.
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
This appeal asks us to decide whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying Ron Flowers' motion to suppress. In a bench ruling, the trial court determined that Flowers' actions, when viewed through the eyes of a trained police officer, gave rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Flowers was concealing a firearm. Thus, the trial court found his seizure constitutional. We AFFIRM the decision of the trial court.
Ron Flowers and his co-defendant, Tariq Mariney, were indicted on charges of Drug Dealing, Aggravated Possession of Cocaine, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony ("PFDCF"), Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon ("CCDW"), two counts each of Possession of a Firearm By a Person Prohibited ("PFBPP") and Possession or Control of Ammunition By a Person Prohibited ("PABPP"), Receiving a Stolen Firearm, and Conspiracy Second Degree.1 Flowers moved to suppress evidence before trial.2 In a bench ruling, the Superior Court denied his motion.
Following a two-day trial, a jury convicted Flowers of two counts of PFBPP as well as the CCDW charge.3 Flowers was sentenced to five years of incarceration followed by descending levels of supervision.
On the night of June 9, 2017, Wilmington Police Detective Alexis Schupp received a tip and reported to Sergeant Michael Gifford that there was a subject at Seventh and West Streets wearing a Phillies shirt, a Phillies hat, and tan shorts who was armed with a gun in his waistband. Sergeant Gifford relayed the tip to members of Wilmington Police Disrupt Squad.4 The intersection of Seventh and West is a high-crime area.
Around 11 p.m., Corporal Thomas Lynch responded to the call and arrived at the area in a patrol car. He saw two men standing next to a car parked on West Street. The two men were talking to the occupants of the car. One of the two men, Tariq Mariney, matched the description of the subject provided in the tip. The other man, Flowers, was standing next to Mariney.
Mariney stepped back from the parked car as Lynch and other officers approached it. Lynch had a clear line of sight to Flowers. Flowers "turned his body and grabbed an object that was protruding from his waistband."5 The object appeared to be rectangular and was "kind of tucked under [Flowers'] shirt," and Flowers had his fingers wrapped around the object.6 Relying on his training and experience, Lynch believed that Flowers' actions were consistent with someone attempting to conceal a firearm.
After observing Flowers' actions, Lynch ordered Flowers and Mariney to the ground. Another officer conducted a pat-down of Flowers and discovered a firearm.
On appeal, Flowers contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the police had reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize (or "stop") him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He claims that this finding is erroneous since the court improperly considered the officer's reliance on a tip from an unknown source. Flowers also argues that his detention went beyond a Terry stop and frisk when Lynch ordered him to the ground. He contends that his detention turned into an arrest which requires probable cause. Finally, he argues that the circumstances, viewed in their totality, do not support a finding of probable cause.
This Court reviews the denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion.7 Embedded legal conclusions are reviewed "de novo for errors in formulating or applying legal precepts."8 When we are reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence based on an allegedly illegal stop and seizure, "we conduct a de novo review to determine whether the totality of the circumstances, in light of the trial judge's factual findings, support a reasonable and articulable suspicion for the stop."9
Flowers' main argument on appeal is that the seizure of him and subsequent pat-down, resulting in the police finding a firearm on his person, was not justified by the requisite reasonable, articulable suspicion that he was armed, and that it was substantially more intrusive than a frisk for weapons ordinarily deemed permissible in such circumstances.
We first set the framework for the analysis. "The United States and Delaware Constitutions protect the right of persons to be secure from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures.’ "10 "Generally, ‘[s]earches and seizures are per se unreasonable, in the absence of exigent circumstances, unless authorized by a warrant supported by probable cause.’ "11 However, in certain circumstances, more limited searches and seizures are found reasonable absent a warrant and when based on less than probable cause: when officers have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a suspect is armed and engaged in criminal activity.12 Under such circumstances, officers may conduct what has become known as a Terry stop-and-frisk.
In Terry v. Ohio ,13 the United States Supreme Court held as follows:
[W]here a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken.14
The State of Delaware has adopted this holding, and Section 1902 of Title 11 governs such "investigative" or Terry stops in this State.15 Section 1902 provides:
In Terry , the United States Supreme Court made clear that the Terry stop-and-frisk still involves a "seizure" and "search" within the meaning of the Constitution.17
A person is "seized" when, "in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave."18 "Two categories of police-citizen encounters which constitute seizures under the Fourth Amendment have been recognized."19 First, police may "restrain an individual for a short period of time" to investigate where officers have "reasonable articulable suspicion that the suspect has committed or is about to commit a crime."20 It requires less than probable cause. This form of seizure is the Terry "stop," or investigative stop.21 For simplicity, we refer to such a seizure as a "stop" in this opinion. Second, the police seize a person when they make an arrest, which requires "probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime."22
The line between a "stop" and an "arrest" is important because an arrest requires probable cause—more than reasonable, articulable suspicion—in order to be reasonable. A few principles help draw the line. "A stop or detention constitutes a seizure of the person, but, in terms of duration and scope, it is a much more limited intrusion than an arrest."23 A Terry stop must be limited, justified at its inception, and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place."24 An unreasonably intrusive stop may constitute a de facto arrest requiring probable cause.25 Indeed, "[a]lthough an investigatory stop is not an arrest ..., it may ripen into an arrest if the duration of the stop or the amount of force used in the situation is ‘unreasonable.’ "26 But "[a] Terry stop does not turn into a full arrest merely because the officers use handcuffs and force the suspect to lie down to prevent flight, so long as the police conduct is reasonable."27 The form of "search" deemed "reasonable" under such circumstances is also a limited one: a "frisk" or pat down to find weapons.28
With this basic framework in mind, we turn to Flowers' argument that his stop and being ordered to the ground by the officers was not based on reasonable, articulable suspicion, that it exceeded mere detention, and that "[a] seizure of this scope is substantially more intrusive than an ordinary Terry frisk for weapons."29 We disagree with each of his contentions.
"Determining whether an officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion to conduct a stop requires a threshold finding of when the stop actually took place."30 Although this point was not specifically briefed below, both Flowers31 and the State assumed that he was seized after the officers observed him "blading his body and grasping his waistband."32
The Superior Court determined that the officers had reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re D.D.
...that D.D. was armed and dangerous. Evasive behavior is a factor that may support a pat-down for weapons. See, e.g. , Flowers v. State , 195 A.3d 18, 27-28 (Del. 2018) (suspect's turning his body away from advancing officers contributed to reasonable suspicion that he might be armed); United......
-
In re D.D.
... ... seizures based on the odor of marijuana. The most recent of ... these cases, Lewis v. State , 470 Md. 1 (2020), ... involved a search incident to an arrest, where the probable ... cause for the arrest was based solely on the fact ... Evasive ... behavior is a factor that may support a pat-down for weapons ... See, e.g. , Flowers v. State , 195 A.3d 18, ... 27-28 (Del. 2018) (suspect's turning his body away from ... advancing officers contributed to reasonable ... ...
-
State v. Murray
...*2-4.29 Lopez-Vazquez v. State , 956 A.2d 1280, 1285 (Del. 2008).30 State v. Rollins , 922 A.2d 379, 382 (Del. 2007).31 Flowers v. State , 195 A.3d 18, 23 (Del. 2018) (quoting Lopez-Vazquez , 956 A.2d at 1285 ).32 Rollins , 922 A.2d at 382.33 Sornberger v. City of Knoxville , 434 F.3d 1006,......
-
Mackell v. State
... ... Va. 2009) (suspect's evasive behavior included blading ... his body away from the officer, to keep one side out of ... sight, and supported reasonable articulable suspicion to ... justify a Terry stop), aff'd , 404 ... Fed.Appx. 757 (4th Cir. 2010); Flowers v. State , 195 ... A.3d 18, 31 (Del. 2018) (concluding that officers had ... reasonable articulable suspicion to detain defendant when he ... "bladed" his body away from the advancing ... officers); Redfield v. State , 78 N.E.3d 1104, 1108 ... (Ind.Ct.App. 2017) (once ... ...