Tang v. State, 270, 2025

Sergeant Moyer saw Tang drive at night without headlights, weave off the road onto a bike trail, then later tailgate and cross into oncoming traffic before stopping him. 1
When Moyer activated his emergency equipment, the cruiser’s MVR began saving video and preserved the prior thirty seconds of buffered footage. 2
After the stop, Tang admitted drinking, failed field sobriety tests, and two breath tests showed BACs of 0.166 and 0.162. 3
Tang moved to suppress, arguing Moyer lacked reasonable articulable suspicion and that the court could not rely on the initial Lewes violations because the MVR was not activated earlier. 4
Tang separately sought the I-9000 manual and later moved to suppress the BAC results, but the court found no manual existed and admitted the BAC evidence after trial testimony established foundation. 5
The Superior Court convicted Tang of DUI and failure to use headlights, and he appealed. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must officers activate MVR at first suspected violation? 7	Tang said Moyer had to activate the MVR when he first saw misconduct.	State said Delaware imposes no duty to record every interaction.	No duty; the MVR need not be activated immediately. 8
Did Moyer have reasonable suspicion to stop Tang? 9	Tang said the stop lacked reliable evidence of the Lewes violations.	State said multiple traffic violations supplied reasonable suspicion.	Yes; the totality of observed violations justified the stop. 10
Was the BAC evidence properly admitted? 11	Tang argued the State lacked a proper foundation without the I-9000 manual and manufacturer proof.	State said no manual existed and the operator testimony and materials were sufficient.	Yes; the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the BAC results. 12

Powell v. State, 173 A.3d 1044 (Del. 2017) (de novo review standard for questions of law 13)
Bloomingdale v. State, 842 A.2d 1212 (Del. 2004) (de novo review when facts underlying reasonable suspicion are undisputed 14)
McGuiness v. State, 312 A.3d 1156 (Del. 2024) (evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion 15)
Harris v. State, 116 A.3d 1243 (Del. 2015) (no duty to record a defendant's statements 16)
Bease v. State, 884 A.2d 495 (Del. 2005) (a single traffic violation can create reasonable articulable suspicion 17)
Clawson v. State, 867 A.2d 187 (Del. 2005) (BAC admissibility turns on whether the State laid an adequate evidentiary foundation 18)