State v. Campbell
1705012271
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- On May 19, 2017, Cpl. Davis (Middletown PD) followed a black Jeep he believed was speeding in a 25 mph zone.
- Davis was ~50 feet behind, lost sight for ~10 seconds while the Jeep traversed ~0.15 miles (half of 0.3-mile Cole Blvd.).
- Davis estimated the Jeep’s speed at ~50–60 mph based on experience; calculation using d/t produced ~54 mph.
- Davis stopped the vehicle for speeding; Defendant Campbell (a passenger) moved to suppress evidence from the stop.
- The court framed the legal questions around (1) whether a passenger has standing to challenge a traffic stop, and (2) whether the stop was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Campbell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the stop | Passenger is seized during a stop and may challenge it (relies on Brendlin) | Passenger lacks standing because he did not own or control the vehicle | Court noted tension in Delaware precedent but did not decide standing; proceeded to merits |
| Validity of the stop (speeding) | Officer had reasonable articulable suspicion based on distance, time, and officer experience | Defense argued the officer’s testimony implied an impossible speed (claimed ~108 mph based on miscalculation) and challenged reliability without radar | Stop was reasonable: timing/distance calculation yields ~54 mph; officer testimony and experience suffice; no radar required in Delaware |
Key Cases Cited
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passengers are "seized" during traffic stops and may challenge the stop under the Fourth Amendment)
- West v. State, 143 A.3d 712 (Del. 2016) (traffic stop seizes car and occupants; objective and officer interpretation considerations apply)
- Murray v. State, 45 A.3d 670 (Del. 2012) (traffic stop results in seizure of passengers as well as the driver)
- Loper v. State, 8 A.3d 1169 (Del. 2010) (during routine stops, passengers are subject to scrutiny)
Decision: Defendant's motion to suppress DENIED; court concluded officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle for speeding.