State v. Seth, 1612016740

On Dec. 27, 2016 Sgt. Baker stopped Trequon T. Seth on US-13 for a nonworking license‑plate light. Video and testimony established the plate lights were not illuminated.
When Baker approached, he detected the odor of marijuana emanating from Seth’s vehicle.
Seth told the officer he had smoked marijuana a few hours earlier.
Baker asked to search the vehicle; the State initially claimed Seth consented but later abandoned that position and presented no evidence of express consent.
During a warrantless search Baker found a backpack in the rear seat containing a digital scale, a handgun, and ammunition; Seth was then arrested for carrying a concealed deadly weapon.
Seth moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the stop, detention, and search; the Superior Court denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Seth)	Held
Lawfulness of initial stop	Stop valid for nonworking plate light	Plate lights were working so stop lacked reasonable suspicion	Stop was lawful—officer testimony and MVR show lights were off
Grounds for continued detention	Odor of marijuana and admission justified continued detention	No reasonable suspicion to extend detention absent other signs	Continued detention justified—the odor alone provided reasonable suspicion and probable cause
Validity of vehicle search	Search supported by probable cause from marijuana odor and admission; consent initially asserted but later abandoned	No consent was given; search improper because based on officer’s subjective intent	Search lawful—odor plus admission gave probable cause for warrantless search under motor‑vehicle exception
Relevance of officer’s subjective intent	Officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis	Argues search was driven by subjective intent to search, not lawful investigation	Court rejects inquiry into subjective intent; follows precedent that subjective motives do not affect probable‑cause analysis

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (addresses limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest; not applicable here because arrest occurred after the search)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (subjective officer intent is irrelevant to ordinary Fourth Amendment probable‑cause analysis)
Hall v. State, 981 A.2d 1106 (Del. 2009) (Delaware precedent recognizing odor of contraband can support probable cause)
Jenkins v. State, 970 A.2d 154 (Del. 2009) (vehicle search and contraband odor principles cited by Delaware courts)
Fowler v. State, 148 A.3d 1170 (Del. 2016) (recognizes that an articulable odor of marijuana may establish probable cause for search)
Chisholm v. State, 988 A.2d 937 (Del. 2010) (Delaware case supporting search based on odor of contraband)