Loat v. State, 254, 2016

Plainclothes Wilmington detectives saw Tariq Loat and Vaughn Rowe walking in a high‑crime area; Rowe repeatedly kept his hand on his waistband, suggesting he might be armed.
Detectives called for uniformed officers to approach; Corporal Moore exited a police vehicle and asked to speak with the men.
Loat immediately fled; Rowe attempted to flee but was restrained and found to have a gun in his waistband.
An officer chased Loat, observed him grab his waistband, yelled “stop, police,” and later found a gun about ten feet from where Loat was caught.
Loat and Rowe were charged with weapons offenses; Rowe moved to suppress and Loat joined. The Superior Court denied suppression and convicted Loat after a stipulated bench trial.
On appeal Loat argued (1) the trial court clearly erred calling a prior search of his home “recent,” and (2) the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop/detain him. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Loat's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether police seized Loat when officers asked to speak	The initial approach/seeming show of authority was a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion	Asking to speak was a consensual encounter; no seizure until flight/force	Asking to speak was consensual; no seizure at that moment
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop/detain Loat after he fled	No reasonable, articulable suspicion justified the stop/detention	Flight in a high‑crime area, prior knowledge that Loat had access to guns, and Loat grabbing his waistband gave reasonable suspicion	Reasonable suspicion existed once Loat fled and grabbed his waistband; suppression not warranted
Whether characterization of the prior search as “recent” was reversible error	The court erred in calling the search recent and that mischaracterization undermines suspicion	Timing label immaterial to reasonable suspicion because knowledge of access to weapons remained relevant	Any error in labeling the search "recent" was not reversible; timing did not affect the reasonable suspicion analysis

Lopez‑Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280 (Del. 2008) (standards for reviewing denial of suppression and reasonable suspicion analysis)
Jones v. State, 745 A.2d 856 (Del. 1999) (reasonable suspicion evaluated by totality of circumstances and officer’s perspective)
Woody v. State, 765 A.2d 1257 (Del. 2001) (presence in a high‑crime area and unprovoked flight can support reasonable suspicion)
Ross v. State, 925 A.2d 489 (Del. 2007) (uniformed officers following and requesting to speak does not necessarily constitute a seizure)