Price v. State: Encirclement of a Vehicle Constitutes Seizure Requiring Reasonable Suspicion

Introduction

In Price v. State (Del. 2025), the Delaware Supreme Court, sitting en banc, clarified when a vehicle encounter amounts to a “seizure” under both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 6 of the Delaware Constitution, and what quantum of suspicion is required to justify that seizure. The case arose from a late‐night 911 call reporting a suspicious vehicle idling in a residential neighborhood. Five officers arrived in three marked units, parked around the suspect’s car, and approached on foot. When appellant Al-Ghaniyy Price opened his door, officers observed what they believed to be heroin fall to the ground. A search of the vehicle produced additional contraband. Price challenged the lawfulness of his seizure and the admissibility of the evidence, arguing that police lacked objective grounds to detain him when they first approached his car. The Superior Court denied suppression, and this appeal ensued.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Delaware unanimously affirmed Price’s convictions and held:

Seizure Timing: An individual is “seized” when a reasonable person in the same circumstances would not feel free to ignore the police presence. Here, officers parking their cars around Price’s Jeep Cherokee and approaching on foot with flashlights constituted such a show of authority.
Reasonable Suspicion: The State had reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the seizure. The 911 call—reporting a vehicle idling for over an hour at 2 AM in a quiet neighborhood, possibly “casing houses”—combined with the officer’s training and experience, supported an objective basis to suspect criminal activity.
Evidence Admissible: Because the seizure was lawful, the drugs observed and recovered during the encounter were admissible. Price’s convictions on multiple drug‐related charges were affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied on and distinguished several key precedents:

Williams v. State (962 A.2d 210 (Del. 2008)): Held that a brief, voluntary roadside inquiry where a single officer briefly asked questions without displaying weapons or blocking egress was not a seizure. Price emphasizes that mere police approach is not per se a seizure.
Jones v. State (745 A.2d 856 (Del. 1999)): Established that a seizure occurs when, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.
Register v. State (2024 WL 5162047 (Del. Dec. 19, 2024)): Reiterated Delaware’s independent constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures under Article I, § 6.
Miller v. State (922 A.2d 1158 (Del. 2007)): Defined “reasonable ground” as “reasonable articulable suspicion,” focusing on the totality of the circumstances.

These authorities provided the framework for defining “seizure” and measuring the adequacy of suspicion to justify it.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis proceeded in two steps:

When Did the Seizure Occur?
Under Jones, a seizure takes place when a reasonable person would not feel free to ignore or depart from the officers. The panel observed that surrounding Price’s vehicle with three marked cars—parked in front, behind, and diagonally—turning on headlights, exiting with flashlights, and advancing on foot collectively conveyed an undue show of authority. Even without activating sirens or issuing immediate commands, these objective indicia of control signaled to a reasonable driver that he could not simply drive away.
Was There Reasonable Suspicion?
The State pointed to (a) the credible 911 report describing a vehicle idling for an excessive period in a residential zone at 2 AM, (b) the tipster’s description of the car and driver, and (c) Officer Webb’s testimony about his experience with pre-crime indicators of vehicle theft and burglaries. Under the totality‐of‐circumstances test, these facts—though not rising to probable cause—amounted to a reasonable, articulable suspicion meriting investigative detention under 11 Del. C. § 1902.

Impact

Price v. State has several significant implications:

Clarification of “Seizure” Threshold: Law enforcement must recognize that non-verbal shows of force—such as encircling a vehicle—can trigger Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 6 protections. Routine “knock and talk” tactics may cross the line if the suspect reasonably feels unable to leave.
Validation of Anonymous 911 Tips: Detailed, contemporaneous telephone tips identifying a suspicious person, vehicle, and activity can supply reasonable suspicion when corroborated by officer observation and experience.
Training Implications: Police agencies must train officers to gauge the cumulative impact of vehicle positioning, vehicle lighting, and officer deployment to avoid unintentionally effecting a seizure without sufficient legal basis.
Guidance for Defense Counsel: Defense practitioners should examine the context of approach—number of officers, positioning, use of equipment—when challenging the lawfulness of a stop or seizure.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Seizure vs. Voluntary Encounter: A “voluntary encounter” is a casual interaction where you feel free to leave at any time. A “seizure” happens when the officer’s conduct makes you think you must comply and cannot walk away.
Reasonable Suspicion: This is a lower standard than probable cause. It means specific and articulable facts—when taken together—that would lead a reasonable officer to suspect criminal activity.
Totality of the Circumstances: Courts look at all factors together—anonymous tip, time of day, location, officer experience, deployment tactics—to decide if suspicion was reasonable.
Anonymous Tip: A call from an unknown individual can justify a stop if it contains sufficient detail and is corroborated by independent observations.

Conclusion

Price v. State reinforces Delaware’s dual constitutional safeguards against unreasonable seizures. It draws a clear line: officers who surround a vehicle and approach on foot in marked cars effect a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 6. Such a seizure is lawful only if supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion, which may be established by an anonymous 911 call supplemented by officer observation and experience. This decision offers indispensable guidance to law enforcement on permissible investigative tactics and to practitioners assessing the validity of vehicle stops.