Holloman v. State, K17C-02-013 JJC

On Nov. 1, 2016 Harrington police stopped Omar Holloman for a seat-belt violation; officer ran his information and prepared to issue a citation.
After obtaining info needed for the citation, the officer ordered Holloman out of the car, detained him further, patted him down, and said he had called a K-9 and that Holloman was “on my time.”
A K-9 arrived minutes later, alerted on the vehicle twice, and officers searched the car but found no drugs; they did find $10,000 cash in a backpack in the trunk.
An ion scan of the cash at the Delaware National Guard detected cocaine residue, prompting civil forfeiture under 16 Del. C. § 4784.
Holloman testified the money was given by his mother for investment; the State did not charge him with drug offenses beyond the traffic citation.
After a bench trial the court concluded Holloman had a lawful possessory interest in the cash and that the extended detention constituted an unlawful seizure; court ordered return of the $10,000 and awarded costs to Holloman.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State met initial burden of probable cause to support forfeiture	Holloman argued seizure unlawful and evidence should be excluded	State relied on ion-scan showing cocaine residue to establish probable cause for forfeiture	Held: State met initial probable-cause burden based on ion-scan results
Whether Holloman had a lawful possessory interest in the seized cash	Holloman asserted ownership (gift from mother/investment funds)	State pointed to inconsistencies in origin statements	Held: Court found Holloman proved lawful possessory interest by preponderance
Whether officer’s actions after completing citation constituted a separate, unlawful seizure	Holloman argued stop was measurably extended beyond traffic investigation and lacked reasonable suspicion	State argued officer had reasonable suspicion based on vagueness of destination, out-of-state plates, and absence of luggage; also invoked permissible overlapping investigations	Held: Court found officer measurably extended the stop without reasonable, articulable suspicion; seizure unlawful
Whether unlawful seizure defeats forfeiture under 16 Del. C. § 4784	Holloman sought return of funds and exclusion of evidence stemming from unlawful seizure	State relied on statutory forfeiture procedures and ion-scan evidence	Held: Because petitioner met statutory burden showing unlawful seizure and possessory interest, court ordered return of funds; costs awarded to petitioner

Brown v. State, 721 A.2d 1263 (Del. 1998) (initial burden-shifting framework in civil forfeiture)
One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1965) (exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings)
State v. Chandler, 132 A.3d 133 (Del. Super. Ct.) (definition and totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
Caldwell v. State, 780 A.2d 1037 (Del. 2001) (investigation beyond purpose of stop constitutes separate seizure)
Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (U.S. 2015) (traffic stop may not be extended beyond time needed to handle the matter of the stop)