State of Delaware v. Greene.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE FRED S. SILVERMAN NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 North King Street, Suite 10400 Wilmington, DE 19801-3733 Telephone (302) 255-0669 JUDGE December 1, 2008 Louis B. Ferrara, Esquire Ferrara & Haley 1716 Wawaset Street P.O. Box 188 Wilmington, DE 19899 RE: State v. Michael Greene ID# 0803009562 Dear Mr. Ferrara: On July 25, 2008, I denied Defendant s motion to suppress after finding Corporal Malkin had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant. I received your October 15, 2008 request for reconsideration, along with Lopez-Vazquez v. State.1 After considering your submission, the court stands by its bench ruling. It is settled that an officer must possess reasonable suspicion to support a traffic stop.2 A traffic violation constitutes reasonable suspicion.3 An officer is also justified to stop a vehicle for erratic driving in order to deter an accident and threat to public safety.4 1 956 A.2d 1280 (Del. 2008). 2 See Caldwell v. State, 780 A.2d 1037, 1045-46 (Del. 2001); State v. Friend, 0804002890 (Del. Super. Nov. 26, 2008) (citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996)). 3 Howard v. State, 931 A.2d 437 (Del. 2007) (TABLE) (ORDER) (citing State v. Godwin, 2007 WL 2122142 (Del. Super. July 24, 2007) (finding that a driver almost hitting a curb, and swerving over the center line, created reasonable suspicion to stop)). 4 Bloomingdale v. State, 842 A.2d 1212, 1221 (Del. 2004) ( The great risk of harm and few investigatory options in erratic driving cases outweigh the relatively less invasive nature of a Louis B. Ferrara, Esquire State v. Michael Greene ID# 0803009562 Letter December 1, 2008 Page 2 Lopez-Vazquez is inapplicable. It concerns an invalid Terry stop stemming from officers seizing Lopez-Vazquez after he walked out of an apartment building that was under police surveillance. Lopez-Vazquez was heading to his vehicle when he was approached by an officer. Lopez-Vazquez held that even though Lopez-Vazquez was visibly nervous and had interacted with a known drug suspect, the facts did amount to reasonable suspicion to stop a citizen on foot. Those facts are completely distinguishable from this case s. Here, the police saw Defendant commit an actual traffic violation.5 That gave them reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant. Corporal Malkin testified that he watched Defendant leave the traffic lane, almost hit a cement curb, and then abruptly reenter the roadway. Defendant s driving can be considered careless and erratic, regardless of whether Defendant used his turn signal or whether a shopping plaza entrance was nearby. At the least, Defendant s driving gave the officer reason to stop him and ask about what the officer saw, and check Defendant s license, registration, and insurance.6 For the foregoing reasons, the court adheres to its earlier decision and finds no cause to adjust it in light of Lopez-Vazquez. Very truly yours, FSS: mes traffic stop.... ). 5 6 Defendant was cited for improper lane change under 21 Del. C. § 4122. Bloomingdale, 842 A.2d at 1221 (holding that short of stopping the vehicle, an officer s options are limited upon observing erratic driving); see also United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir. 2001) (officers are permitted to request and verify documentation); United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d 947, 952 (7th Cir. 2002) (same). Louis B. Ferrara, Esquire State v. Michael Greene ID# 0803009562 Letter November 25, 2008 Page 2 cc: Prothonotary (Criminal) Susan S. Dwyer, Deputy Attorney General

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.