State of Delaware, Below v. David Abel, Below

Summary

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed suppression of two handguns recovered during a traffic stop because the totality of the circumstances did not create a particularized, reasonable, articulable suspicion that Abel was armed and dangerous. Abel’s gang affiliation, refusal to disclose his destination, and statement that he was going on a “run” were insufficient when considered with his calm, polite, cooperative behavior, visible hands, and the absence of a bulge or threatening movement. The court also held that the State could pursue only its officer-safety theory because it had not presented other statutory grounds below. Justice Ridgely, joined by Justice Holland, dissented and would have upheld the protective pat-down based on the officer’s training, Abel’s gang affiliation, excessive speed, and statement that he was on a “run.”