Supreme Court of Delaware· 7/10/2012

Murray v. State

Citations

45 A.3d 670
2012 WL 1696994

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that if objective facts justify a traffic stop, the stop is legal, notwithstanding the officer’s harboring a different subjective motivation
holding that any measurable extension of time beyond that needed to complete a traffic stop is a separate seizure
stating that “this Court considers probation officers to have acted reasonably so long as they substantially comply with Delaware Department of Corrections regulations.”
noting that United States Supreme Court precedent has held that an officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for a traffic spot were permissible when they were “measures taken for self-protection at the very start of the traffic stop.”
stating further that “our law does not permit suspicionless probationer searches” and that “[a] probation officer must have a reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to justify an administrative search of a residence or car.”
“A traffic stop results in a seizure of the passengers as well as the driver”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Steele, Holland, Berger, Jacobs, Ridgely

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.