Waters v. State

Waters v. State · Supreme Court of the State of Delaware · January 8, 2016 · No. No. 624, 2014

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Terrance Waters's convictions for weapons offenses and resisting arrest. The Court held that police had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Waters based on the totality of the circumstances, and that the issue was not plain error despite not being raised at trial.

Court
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
Writing for the Court
Strine, Chief Justice; Valihura, Justice; Vaughn, Justice
Jurisdiction
Delaware
Decision date
January 8, 2016
Docket number
No. 624, 2014
Procedural posture
Waters appealed from a Superior Court jury verdict finding him guilty of carrying a concealed deadly weapon, possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, possession of ammunition by a person prohibited, possession of a weapon with an obliterated serial number, and resisting arrest. He argued that the police lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop him. Because no objection or motion was made below, the Supreme Court reviewed the issue for plain error.
Standard of review
Plain error review. Failure to object at trial waives the issue on appeal unless the error was plain; plain error must be clearly prejudicial to substantial rights and apparent on the face of the record, constituting a basic, serious, and fundamental defect or manifest injustice.
Precedential value
Published Delaware Supreme Court order; precedential value not otherwise specified in the opinion text.
Parties
Terrance Waters v. State of Delaware
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

search and seizurereasonable doubtcriminal procedureappellate procedurepreservation of error

Practice areas

criminal proceduresearch and seizureappellate procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion, under the totality of the circumstances, to stop and detain Waters for investigative purposes.
  2. Whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to raise sua sponte the legality of the stop when Waters made no objection or motion at trial.

Holdings

  1. The officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Waters because the totality of the circumstances supported a reasonable belief that he was carrying a weapon or, at minimum, contraband.
  2. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to raise sua sponte the issue of whether the stop was justified.

Key quotations

Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process. (at 4)
reasonable suspicion must be evaluated in the context of the totality of the circumstances as 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 (at 4)

Factual background

Wilmington police and a Delaware probation officer observed Waters riding a bicycle, turning into an alley, abandoning the bicycle, and walking away after noticing the officers. As the officers followed, Waters repeatedly made movements toward his waistband, turned his body away from them, accelerated when asked his name, and then ran. During the pursuit, he appeared to throw a metal object behind a parked vehicle; officers recovered a firearm, later determined to have an obliterated serial number, and arrested Waters.

Procedural history

After Wilmington police officers pursued and arrested Waters, he was charged with five weapons- and arrest-related offenses. Following a jury trial, he was convicted on all charges and sentenced to six years of incarceration followed by probation. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court judgment, holding that the officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Waters and that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to raise the issue sua sponte.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…