State v. Murray
213 A.3d 571
Del.2019Background
- Late evening October 13, 2017: Wilmington Police in an unmarked vehicle observed Andre Murray and another man walking in a high‑crime area; Murray walked with his right arm held tightly to his right front side ("canting") and later "bladed" his body away from the officer.
- Officer Rosaio watched for ~20 seconds, exited the vehicle in marked vest, approached Murray, saw Murray reach toward his waistband, drew his service weapon, ordered Murray to the ground, and Murray then admitted he had a handgun; the officer recovered a firearm from Murray’s right waistband.
- Murray was charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon and related offenses and moved to suppress the handgun, arguing lack of reasonable, articulable suspicion or probable cause.
- The Superior Court granted the motion, finding the encounter had become an arrest requiring probable cause (which it found lacking) and expressing skepticism about the officer’s training‑based testimony about "armed gunman" behaviors.
- Delaware Supreme Court reversed: it held the encounter was a lawful Terry stop (investigatory seizure) when the officer acted and the use of drawn weapon/forcible compliance did not automatically convert the stop into an arrest; the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion based on totality of circumstances (canting, blading, stutter step, scanning, high‑crime area, and training/experience).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Murray) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether drawing a firearm converted the encounter into an arrest requiring probable cause | Officer’s drawing of weapon was part of a Terry stop; arrest occurred only after the gun was found | Drawing the weapon and forcing Murray to ground effectuated an arrest that required probable cause | Majority: No—arrest occurred after weapon recovery; drawing a weapon and forcing to ground can remain a reasonable measure during a Terry stop |
| Whether the initial stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion that Murray carried a concealed deadly weapon | Officer had specific facts (canting, blading, stutter step, scanning, high‑crime area) plus training/experience to form reasonable suspicion | Officer’s observations were innocent, training testimony unreliable; amounted to a hunch | Majority: Yes—totality of circumstances and officer’s training objectively supported reasonable suspicion |
| Whether officer training/experience testimony required scientific validation to be credited | Training/experience is entitled to deference; courts need not demand statistical proof | Trial court rejected the training testimony as insufficiently reliable and too vague | Majority: Training/experience may be considered; courts need not require scientific studies; deference appropriate absent clear error |
| Whether possession of a firearm alone constitutes criminal activity justifying a Terry stop (raised in dissent) | Carrying a concealed weapon without license is criminal (and licensure historically placed burden on defendant) | Dissent: Mere observation of a concealed weapon does not alone permit inference of unlawful conduct without articulable facts that the person is unlicensed or prohibited | Majority: Did not resolve issue as presented; focused on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on behavior plus context |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes scope of investigative stops and reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (flight and nervous, evasive behavior in high‑crime area can contribute to reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality of circumstances and commonsense inferences govern reasonable suspicion analysis)
- Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985) (example of when seizure becomes an arrest based on custody and transport)
- Flowers v. State, 195 A.3d 18 (Del. 2018) (Delaware precedent on permissible safety measures during Terry stops)
- Quarles v. State, 696 A.2d 1334 (Del. 1997) (Delaware on investigatory detention and Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Upshur v. State, 420 A.2d 165 (Del. 1980) (Delaware case addressing burden of proving licensure to carry concealed weapon)