SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
CRAIG A. KARSNITZ, SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHOUSE
RESIDENT JUDGE 1 THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2
GEORGETOWN, DE 19947
TELEPHONE (302) 856-5263
August 21, 2026
Daniel A. Strumpf, Esquire
Assistant Public Defender
Office of Defense Services
14 The Circle, 2nd Floor
Georgetown, De 19947
Emma G. Ballantine, Esquire
Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
13 The Circle
Georgetown, DE 19947
Re: State of Delaware v. Andre Cannon, Cr. No. 2505009483
Defendant’s Motion for Reargument
Counsel:
Factual Background
On May 19th, 2205, Detective Vincent saw a black 2020 Nissan Altima
bearing Maryland temporary registration T2254397. The Nissan Altima had a
cracked windshield. The crack was located on the righthand passenger side of the windshield. A screenshot from Detective Vincent's body-worn camera was entered
as evidence during the suppression hearing. Detective Vincent made a traffic stop
based on the cracked windshield.
As Detective Vincent approached the vehicle, he saw Andre Cannon
(“Defendant”) making movements toward the back seat and rear floorboard.
Detective Vincent observed a spilled drink on the back seat and Defendant tossing
clothing toward the left side of the rear floorboard. Defendant did not lower the
window, so Detective Vincent opened the passenger door and asked what Defendant
was searching for. Defendant said he was looking for his paperwork. Detective
Vincent instructed Defendant to stop reaching around inside the vehicle. When
Detective Vincent asked for license and insurance, Defendant provided insurance
but did not have a license. Detective Vincent informed Defendant that he pulled
Defendant over because of the crack in his windshield. Defendant acknowledged
the crack in his windshield, indicating prior knowledge of the crack. During this
interaction, Detective Vincent observed plastic baggies in the front passenger
door compartment. The officers on scene ultimately searched Defendant's person
and vehicle and found the evidence that supports the charges against the Defendant,
and which Defendant seeks to have suppressed.
2
Procedural Background
On April 29, 2026, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence found,
arguing that there was no reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle because
the condition of the windshield did not violate any Delaware statute. The State filed
its Response on June 1, 2026. I held a suppression hearing on July 28, 2026.
Detective Vincent was the only witness at the hearing. I denied the Motion to
Suppress from the bench.
On August 4, 2026, Defendant filed a Motion for Reargument under Delaware
Civil Rule 59(e).1 The State filed its Response on August 19, 2026. This is my ruling
on the Motion for Reargument.
Legal Standard
A motion for reargument will be granted only under limited circumstances.
The court must have "overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or the
court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome
of the underlying decision."2 The purpose of such a motion is "to request that the
1
The Delaware Criminal Rules do not contain a rule regarding reargument; therefore, I look to the Civil Rules for guidance.
2
State v. Brinkley, 132 A.3d 839 (Del. 2016).
3
trial court reconsider whether it overlooked applicable legal precedent or
misapprehended the law or facts in such a way as to affect the outcome of the case."3
A motion for reargument "should not be a vehicle for one party who was
unhappy with the court's ruling to simply rehash the arguments already heard and
decided by the court."4 Additionally, "a motion for reargument [cannot] be used to
introduce new evidence and/or new arguments which could have been, but were not
submitted at trial."5 The motion is "not designed to accommodate a reargument of
matters which were previously considered and determined."6
I have carefully reviewed the Motion and the attachments thereto. Under the
above-referenced standards, I find no reason to grant reargument or to hold another
suppression hearing. I see nothing that such a hearing would produce other than
information which is already on the record.
The Merits
Defendant moves for reargument based on (1) a lack of reasonable articulable
suspicion for the stop, (2) the unconstitutional vagueness of 21 Del. C. §4313(a),7
and (3) the unconstitutional vagueness of 21 Del. C. §2144.8 The parties spent much
3
Benge v. State, 101 A.3d 973 (Del. 2014).
4
Martin v. Martin, 857 A.2d 1037 (Del. 2004).
5
Id.
6
Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc v. Sun K. Shin, Not Reported in A.2d (1984). 7
This statute incorporates by reference the provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 in effect at the time of a windshield’s manufacture under 49 CFR 571.205.S2. 8
This statute permits a police officer, upon reasonable cause, to stop a vehicle to investigate a possible equipment defect. It is a misdemeanor under 21 Del. C. §4355(a) for "any person to drive
4
time during the suppression hearing and in their briefs on the Motion for Reargument
arguing the nuances of these State and Federal statutes and regulations and whether
they provided Detective Vincent with reasonable articulable suspicion to stop
Defendant’s vehicle. However, I find it unnecessary for purposes of this ruling to
rehash the discussion of reasonable articulable suspicion under Delaware law, or the
strengths and infirmities of the above-referenced statutes.
As I stated during my ruling denying the Motion to Suppress at the
suppression hearing, in my view Detective Vincent had the authority to make a
judgment and determination as to whether there was reasonable cause to believe that
the vehicle was unsafe.9 I asked the Detective specifically about this to determine if
this was just a pretext for stopping and searching the vehicle, and in my view it was
not pretextual.
Wholly apart from the statutes, Delaware case law has long recognized the
community caretaking function of the police. The Delaware Supreme Court
officially adopted the community caretaking doctrine in Williams v. State,10
establishing that the role of police in Delaware is not limited to merely the detection
or move or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved on any highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person." Additionally, it is unlawful under 21 Del. C. §2115(6) to "[d]rive or move or, being the owner, cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved, on any highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person.” 9
See Transcript of Suppression Hearing, at p. 69, lines 8 – 20.
10
962 A.2d 210 (Del. 2008).
5
and prevention of criminal activity, but also encompasses a non-investigative, noncriminal role to ensure the safety and welfare of citizens. In State v. Negron,11 this
Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s three-part test, which requires: (1) objective,
specific, and articulable facts from which an experienced officer would suspect that
a citizen is in apparent peril, distress, or need of assistance; (2) if the citizen is in
need of aid, the officer may take appropriate action to render assistance or mitigate
the peril; and (3) once the officer is assured that the citizen is not in peril or is no
longer in need of assistance, the caretaking function is over and any further detention
constitutes an unreasonable seizure unless the officer has a warrant or some other
exception to the warrant requirement applies.
In West v. State,12 this Court held that a seizure is a seizure regardless of
whether the person seized was driving in a car at the time, and that if the community
caretaker doctrine may constitutionally be applied as an exception to the warrant
requirement when one’s person is seized, it may equally be applied when that person
is driving in a car. Similarly, in State v. McDowell,13 this Court found that a police
officer’s observation of a disabled vehicle interfering with traffic on a busy highway,
combined with a bystander’s report that the car had run out of gas and the defendant
wandering near moving traffic, constituted the objective, specific, and articulable
11
2012 WL 2833004 (Del. Super. June 28, 2012).
12
2015 WL 5121059 (Del. Super. Aug. 20, 2015).
13
2016 WL 6462143 (Del. Super. Oct. 31, 2016).
6
facts necessary to justify a community caretaking stop.
In my view, on the facts of this case, any reasonable police officer would have
had objective, specific, and articulable reasons to stop a vehicle with a cracked
window under the community caretaking doctrine.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Reargument is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Craig A. Karsnitz
Craig A. Karsnitz
cc: Prothonotary
7