State of Delaware, Below v. David Abel, Below — Ridgely, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent would have held that the trooper had reasonable, articulable suspicion that Abel was armed and dangerous, based on the totality of the circumstances, and would have denied suppression. The supplemental opinion concludes that the Superior Court harmlessly erred in identifying the timing of the second seizure but denies reargument because correcting that error would not change the result and reaffirms the suppression judgment.