Flowers v. State
195 A.3d 18
Del.2018Background
- Police received a tip about an armed man at Seventh and West Streets in Wilmington wearing a Phillies shirt/hat and tan shorts; officers from a specialized "Operation Disrupt" unit responded.
- Officers found two men near a parked car; one matched the tip (Mariney); Flowers stood next to him.
- Corporal Lynch observed Flowers "blade" his body and grab a rectangular object protruding from his waistband, tucking it under his shirt with fingers wrapped around it.
- Lynch ordered Flowers and others to the ground; a subsequent pat-down revealed a firearm on Flowers. Flowers moved to suppress the weapon evidence.
- Superior Court denied the motion to suppress, finding officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop and frisk Flowers and that ordering him to the ground was justified for officer safety; Flowers was later convicted of weapons offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Flowers' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop/detain Flowers | Detention rested on an unreliable anonymous tip and therefore lacked reasonable suspicion | Officers observed independent corroborating suspicious conduct (blading, grabbing waistband, rectangular bulge) in a high-crime area at night | Court held reasonable, articulable suspicion existed based on officers' observations and context; tip only prompted response, not sole basis for stop |
| Whether ordering Flowers to the ground and pat-down exceeded Terry and became an arrest requiring probable cause | Forcing him to the ground was a substantially more intrusive seizure than a frisk and amounted to an arrest without probable cause | The show of force and placing on ground were reasonable and proportionate to officer safety given belief he was armed | Court held the force used remained within Terry scope and did not ripen into an arrest; measures were reasonable for officer safety |
| Whether the anonymous tip alone could justify the seizure | Argues tip was insufficient and reliance on it invalidates the stop | State contends the tip prompted deployment but the stop was justified by independent observations corroborating suspicious behavior | Court found the stop was justified by independent corroboration; any challenge to reliance on the tip was waived or, in any event, unsuccessful |
| Whether the totality of circumstances supported admission of the weapon | Contends overall facts do not support probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify search/seizure | Points to blading, hand over waistband, protruding rectangular object, time, location, and officers' training/experience | Court concluded totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion and lawful frisk; weapon admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes investigatory stop-and-frisk standard based on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988) (defines when a person is "seized" for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness standard for use of force and balancing test for intrusiveness)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Nev., Humboldt Cty., 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (addresses scope of investigatory stops and identification duties)
- Quarles v. State, 696 A.2d 1334 (Del. 1997) (Delaware discussion of seizure categories and requirement of probable cause for arrests)
- Woody v. State, 765 A.2d 1257 (Del. 2000) (Delaware deference to officer training and factors in reasonable suspicion analysis)