Holden v. State, 2011 Del. LEXIS 322

Holden was convicted of Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon after a stipulated bench trial on June 30, 2010.
The suppression motion challenged the pat down and seizure of the gun as unlawfully obtained evidence.
Police stopped a Bronco with three occupants after observing a fictitious PA license plate; Holden was outside the vehicle and later ordered back inside.
Tynes frisked Holden during the stop, yielding a firearm; no bulge or other articulable threat was identified.
The trial court denied the suppression motion at a June 1, 2010 hearing; Holden appealed.
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding the pat down was not supported by reasonable suspicion and evidence must be suppressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was reasonable suspicion to frisk Holden.	Holden argues no reasonable articulable suspicion existed.	State contends circumstancesimannot.	Frisk not justified; suppression required.
Whether the suppression ruling was properly supported on the record.	Trial judge’s reasons were not provided; abuse of discretion.	State contends proper standard applied.	Abuse of discretion; need factual findings and rationale.
Whether the initial stop and seizure were lawful.	Stop based on probable cause to suspect a stolen vehicle; lawful.	Arguments focus on frisk; stop legality not dispositive.	Valid stop but does not cure lack of reasonable suspicion for frisk.

State v. Henderson, 892 A.2d 1061 (Del. 2006) (gives framework for reasonable suspicion and Terry-based stops)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop and frisk standard)
Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1980) (limits frisk to specific, reasonable suspicion cases)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (pretextual stops rules under probable cause)
State v. Rollins, 922 A.2d 379 (Del. 2007) (defines stop/detention timing and validity)
State v. Dollard, 788 A.2d 1283 (Del. Super. Ct. 2001) (limits on routine pat downs without particularized safety basis)