Calm v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court held that police may not pat down a passenger during a traffic stop solely because the driver consented to a search of the vehicle. The court concluded that the officers lacked reasonable articulable suspicion that Anthony Calm was armed and dangerous when the pat-down began, requiring suppression of the firearm and ammunition. It reversed Calm’s convictions for weapons offenses but affirmed his conviction for resisting arrest.

Holdings

1. Consent to search a vehicle does not, by itself, authorize a search or pat-down of the individual passengers. A pat-down of a passenger requires the passenger's consent or reasonable articulable suspicion that the passenger is armed and dangerous.
2. The officer lacked reasonable articulable suspicion that Calm was armed and presently dangerous when he decided to initiate the pat-down. Conduct occurring after the search began could not retroactively justify the search.
3. The firearm and ammunition seized during the unjustified pat-down had to be suppressed, requiring reversal of the convictions for possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, possession of ammunition by a person prohibited, and carrying a concealed deadly weapon. The resisting-arrest conviction remained unaffected because the seized evidence was not relevant to that charge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the driver's consent to a search of the vehicle independently authorized police to pat down Calm, a passenger.
2. Whether, at the time the officer initiated the pat-down, the circumstances provided reasonable articulable suspicion that Calm was armed and presently dangerous.
3. Whether the firearm and ammunition had to be suppressed and which convictions were affected by suppression of that evidence.

Disposition

other