State v. Walker

STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff v. DESMIN WALKER, Defendant.

ID No. 2003012057

Superior Court of Delaware

October 12, 2021

Submitted: October 7, 2021

Anthony Hill, Deputy Attorney General

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

FRANCIS J. JONES, JR., JUDGE

Defendant Desmin Walker ("Walker"), has filed a Motion to Suppress to challenge the admissibility of evidence resulting from a traffic stop of a vehicle that he was a passenger in resulting in his arrest. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.

On October 7, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Suppress at which time Officer Neil Evans ("Evans") and Senior Probation Officer Dan Collins ("Collins") testified. Their testimony reveals the following facts which the Court finds were proven by the State by a preponderance of the evidence.

Evans testified that he has been a police officer for 14 years and has participated in the "Safe Streets Operation" for the last 5 years. Further, Evans testified that aside from his firearm related training in the police academy, he has completed post-academy training. Evans also serves as an instructor to other officers training them how to recognize the signs to look for as to whether a person is carrying a weapon. Collins testified that he has been a probation officer for 18 years and has participated in the "Safe Streets Operation" for the last 11 years.

On March 26, 2020, Evans and Collins were on patrol in the area of the 300 block of East 24th Street in an unmarked police Durango. While traveling west bound in the 300 block of East 24th Street, Evans and Collins observed a Silver 2009 Toyota Camry approach the intersection of East 24th Street and North Jessup Street. The officers observed the vehicle fail to stop at a stop sign in making a left hand turn into the 2300 block of North Jessup Street, southbound. The officers conducted a traffic stop in the 300 block of East 23rd Street for the stop sign violation.

In approaching the vehicle, Evans approached from the driver's side and Collins on the passenger side. Evans observed Walker seated in the rear driver's side passenger seat staring directly in front of him, at the back of the driver seat, with a wide-eyed look on his face. Walker did not break this stare as Evans passed the rear driver side door and made contact with the driver. Based on Evan's experience and training, he thought Walker's behavior was odd because, during a traffic stop, most occupants of a vehicle would acknowledge the officers' presence in some way, either by looking at them or seeing what direction they are coming from.

While speaking with the driver, Evans stood next to the vehicle in a way that allowed him to view Walker. Evans asked the driver for her driver's license and paperwork for the vehicle. When the driver was getting her driver's license, Evans continued to monitor Walker who he observed to be visibly nervous. It was Evan's testimony that Walker was avoiding eye contact with him and breathing fast and heavy. Evans then knocked on Walker's window and asked him to roll it down so they could speak. When Evans asked Walker for identification, Walker looked at him with a panicked look and stated that he did not think that he had it. Evans asked Walker again if he had identification, prompting Walker to pat the exterior of his clothing all over in an attempt to locate his identification. Walker then began to reach towards the floorboard, and in doing so, grabbed the exterior of his right sweatpants pocket and immediately let it go. Evans noted that Walker had, in his left hand, a red cellphone.

Evans testified that he knew Walker's action of grabbing the exterior of his right sweatpants pocket, and then immediately letting it go was a "security check" - something subconsciously done by an individual to ensure that an object remains secure. Evans testified that as Walker grabbed the exterior of his sweatpants pocket, he observed a large solid mass, a bulge, which was completely concealed within the right front pocket of Walker's sweatpants. Evans testified that the "printing" or outline of the object was roughly the size of a firearm. When Walker let go of his pocket, he pressed his right forearm over it. Walker again bent towards the floorboard, and in doing so shifted the right side of his body away from Evans. Evans testified that this behavior is known as "blading" - where an individual will shift their body away from an officer to prevent the officer from seeing the "printing" or outline of a firearm. Evans testified that he stopped Walker from reaching to the floorboard again because firearms are typically concealed under car seats. When Walker sat back up he again grabbed the bulge. It was at this point that Evans testified that he believed Walker had a firearm.

Evans did not, however, immediately remove Walker from the vehicle after determining that the concealed object in Walker's right front sweatpants pocket was probably a firearm based on the totality of circumstances which included Evans' experience and training. Evans testified that he felt more in control of the situation with Walker in the vehicle, and that it would not have been safe for him to remove Walker from the vehicle if he believed Walker did have a firearm. After additional units arrived at the scene to assist Evans, Walker was removed from the vehicle by Evans. Evans testified that as Walker was getting out of the vehicle he began to reach into his right front sweatpants pocket with his right hand. Evans gave Walker a loud, clear verbal command to take his hand out of his pocket, which Walker complied with. Evans then guided Walker out of the vehicle. Evans turned Walker around to face the vehicle while holding his right hand. Walker, on his own, pressed his hips up against the rear driver-side quarter panel. Evans testified that this was a technique used by individuals as a "last chance" to conceal from officers what they do not want the officers to find.

Evans eventually conducted a pat down on Walker of the exterior of his right front sweatpants pocket. Evans further testified that based on his training and experience he knew all of Walker's actions to be consistent with the characteristics of a criminal gunman: visibly nervous and heavy rapid breathing; grabbing the exterior of his right pants pocket; pressing his right forearm tightly up against his right front sweatpants pocket as he moved around in the seat of the vehicle; turning the right side of his body away from Evans; and again, grabbing the object concealed in his pocket. Evans noted that although the driver was attempting to give him her driver's license and the required paperwork, Walker's actions were so concerning that Evans was unable to obtain her paperwork because he did not want to take his eyes off Walker for fear he may be armed with a firearm. When Evans conducted the pat down on Walker, he felt what he immediately knew to be a revolver concealed in his pocket. Walker was then taken into custody and Evans removed one (1) Silver Charter Arms Mode; U.C. lite .38 Special 5 shot revolver with a black handle and an obliterated serial number.

The driver and other passenger in the vehicle were also removed from the vehicle. Evans eventually obtained the driver's license and paperwork once Walker was secured. Evans testified that the events set forth all took place within approximately five (5) minutes. The driver was ultimately issued a traffic ticket for failure to stop at a stop sign.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On a Motion to Suppress evidence in a warrantless search or seizure, "the State bears the burden of proof."^[1]

Police officers are permitted to stop a motor vehicle based on a police officer's reasonable suspicion that the operator or occupant of the vehicle has committed or is committing a violation of the law, which includes traffic laws.^[2]

A determination of reasonable suspicion is "evaluated in the context of the totality of circumstances to assess whether the detaining officer had a particularized and objective basis to suspect criminal activity."^[3] The totality of circumstances of the surrounding situation is "viewed through the eyes of a reasonable, trained police officer in the same or similar circumstances, combining objective facts with such an officer's subjective interpretation of those facts."^[4] Thus, when determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to justify a detention, a court "defers to the experience and training of law enforcement officers."^[5]

Since the motion challenges an officer's actions in removing an occupant of a vehicle out of it during a traffic stop, the burden is on the State to show the stop was reasonable by a preponderance of the evidence.^[6]

The initial purpose of a traffic stop determines the duration and execution of the stop.^[7] Any investigation beyond the initial purpose of the stop "must be supported by independent facts sufficient to justify the additional intrusion."^[8] An officer must let a car go after issuing a citation or warning and running routine computer checks unless he obtains voluntary consent from the driver or unveils independent facts to justify the encounter.^[9] "Whether a given detention is unreasonably attenuated necessarily involves a fact-intensive inquiry in each case."^[10]

An officer who initiates a lawful traffic stop may order the occupants of the vehicle out of it, and such an order does not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.^[11] Additionally, an officer is justified in conducting a pat down search of a person where the officer possesses "reasonable suspicion that the person subject to the frisk is armed and dangerous."^[12] The purpose of this law is "to balance two vitally important interests -...