Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed suppression of a firearm discovered during a pat-down of Steven Henderson, who had left a recreation center with a wanted fugitive. The court held that although the initial stop was valid, the officer lacked reasonable articulable suspicion that Henderson was armed and dangerous. The court also rejected the State's plain-view argument because it failed to establish that the officer saw the firearm before or during the pat-down.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion that Henderson was armed and presently dangerous sufficient to justify a Terry frisk.
- Whether the firearm was admissible under the plain-view doctrine when the evidence did not establish that the officer saw it before or as he performed the pat-down.
- Whether the constitutionality of Delaware's automatic companion rule should be decided.
Holdings
- The frisk of Henderson was unconstitutional because the officer lacked reasonable articulable suspicion that Henderson was armed and presently dangerous. Merely accompanying a person suspected of felony drug offenses, without additional specific facts, does not establish the required suspicion.
- The plain-view doctrine did not establish admissibility because the State failed to prove that the officer first saw the firearm before or as he conducted the pat-down.
- The court declined to decide the constitutionality of the automatic companion rule because the issue was not presented for decision.
Key quotations
“We cannot hold that simply accompanying another person reasonably suspected of having committed felony drug charges, without anything more gives rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion that the companion is presently armed and dangerous.” (892 A.2d at 1063)
“Further, although the State argues that the plain view doctrine applies, it failed to meet its burden to show that Schiavi, in fact, saw the gun before or as he performed the pat-down.” (892 A.2d at 1063)
“The frisk of Henderson, however, was not supported by a reasonable articulable suspicion that Henderson was armed and dangerous.” (892 A.2d at 1065)
Factual background
Police assembled a five- or six-officer team to arrest Michael Jones, a fugitive wanted on a DEA warrant for felony drug charges, at a Boys and Girls Club. When Jones left the recreation center with Henderson and another unidentified man, Officer Schiavi stopped the group because he could not identify which person was Jones. Henderson immediately complied with commands to place his hands on the vehicle and did not make any furtive movement or act aggressively. During a pat-down, Schiavi felt what he believed to be a gun and then saw its butt in Henderson's pocket.
Procedural history
Police detained Henderson while executing an arrest warrant for Michael Jones and recovered a firearm during a Terry pat-down. The Superior Court found no reasonable articulable suspicion supporting the frisk and concluded that the potential automatic companion rule violated the Delaware Constitution. It granted Henderson's suppression motion, after which the State dismissed the charges; the State appealed, arguing that the frisk was justified under the totality of the circumstances or that the firearm was admissible under the plain-view doctrine.