Delaware Code

11 Del. C. § 1902 (2026)

Questioning and detaining suspects

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A peace officer may stop any person abroad, or in a public place, who the officer has reasonable ground to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand the person’s name, address, business abroad and destination.

(b) Any person so questioned who fails to give identification or explain the person’s actions to the satisfaction of the officer may be detained and further questioned and investigated.

(c) The total period of detention provided for by this section shall not exceed 2 hours. The detention is not an arrest and shall not be recorded as an arrest in any official record. At the end of the detention the person so detained shall be released or be arrested and charged with a crime.

Code 1935, §§ 5343-B; 48 Del. Laws, c. 304; 11 Del. C. 1953, § 1902; 56 Del. Laws, c. 152, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1;

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 61 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: West v. State, 143 A.3d 712 (Del. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

West v. State, 143 A.3d 712 (Del. 2016). “The statutory authorization to stop based on 6 Reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity includes not just traffic offenses, but criminal activity such as drunk driving.”

State v. Heath, 929 A.2d 390 (Del. Super. Ct. 2006). “Under 11 Del. C. § 1902 Officer Shyres is empowered to question the Defendant about his “name, address, business abroad, and destination,” because the officer had reasonable ground to suspect the Defendant had violated a traffic regulation.”

Flonnory v. State, 805 A.2d 854 (Del. 2001). “Appellant also contends that the State violated 11 Del. C. § 1902(a) which authorizes the police to conduct a stop if an officer has "reasonable ground” to suspect that an individual has committed or will commit a crime.”

Kavanagh v. Stenhouse, 174 A.2d 560 (R.I. 1961). · cites it 3× “He cites numerous Federal authorities in support. We may assume that he is correct in arguing that arrests without warrant may be made only upon probable cause.”

Schaffer v. State, 184 A.2d 689 (Del. 1962). · cites it 2× “(3) Defendants also contend that the $20 bill in question was illegally seized because it was taken from Schaffer after expiration of the two-hour detention period provided for in 11 Del.C. § 1902. The statute, in effect, authorizes a detention for a maximum of two hours and…”

United States v. Thompson, 292 F. Supp. 757 (D. Del. 1968). “In fact, under the construction which the Delaware Supreme Court has placed on the language of the state’s investigative detention statute, 11 Del.C. § 1902, it appears that, although “reasonable suspicion” was designed by the legislature as the proper basis for an investigatory…”

State v. Bowden, 273 A.2d 481 (Del. 1971). “133, § 101 (2), 1 The question of law' presented involves the lawfulness of a seizure of evidence incident to an apprehension which the police officer labeled a detention under the Two Hour Law, 11 Del.C. § 1902 2 I. The question presented arose in a grand larceny and conspiracy…”

State v. Lynch, 274 A.2d 443 (Del. Super. Ct. 1971). “11 Del.C. § 1902. Certainly, a statute in terms of arrest or reasonable grounds to believe on the part of the law enforcement officer before arrest should pass the due process test.”

McDougal v. State (Del. 2024). · cites it 17× “The court put it this way: Because Moses was investigating a potential violation of the loitering statute, 11 Del. C. § 1902[] allows further detention if Moses possessed a “reasonable ground to suspect” [McDougal] was “committing, has committed or is about to commit” that crime.”

Jarvis v. State, 224 A.2d 596 (Del. 1966). · cites it 2× “Thereupon, the statement was taken and the defendant was formally charged with the burglary. At the trial before a jury on January 25, 1966, the statement was admitted in evidence over objection.”

State v. Meades, 947 A.2d 1093 (Del. 2008). “11 Del. C. § 1902(a). 4 . Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.”

United States Ex Rel. Mealey v. State of Delaware, 352 F. Supp. 349 (D. Del. 1972). “1963) it was held that no reason existed why “reasonable ground” as used in 11 Del.C. § 1902(a) should not be likened to “probable cause” as used in the fourteenth amendment.”

Show all 61 citing cases →

— 11 Del. C. § 1902(a) — 21 cases

State v. Meades, 947 A.2d 1093 (Del. 2008). “11 Del. C. § 1902(a). 4 . Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.”

McDougal v. State (Del. 2024). “The court put it this way: Because Moses was investigating a potential violation of the loitering statute, 11 Del. C. § 1902[] allows further detention if Moses possessed a “reasonable ground to suspect” [McDougal] was “committing, has committed or is about to commit” that crime.”

— 11 Del. C. § 1902(b) — 4 cases

Schaffer v. Anderson, 224 F. Supp. 184 (D. Del. 1963).

State v. Medina (Del. Super. Ct. 2020).

State v. Williams (Del. Super. Ct. 2026).

— 11 Del. C. § 1902(c) — 4 cases

Montgomery v. State (Del. 2020).

Diggs v. State (Del. 2021).

Womack v. State (Del. 2023).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.