The Delaware Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of Henry C. Tang for driving under the influence (DUI) and failing to turn on his headlights. The court ruled on July 23, 2026, affirming the lower court's decision regarding the legality of the traffic stop and the admissibility of evidence against Tang.
This ruling affects Tang, who was found guilty of DUI after a series of traffic violations led to his arrest. The case raises important questions about police procedures and the standards for traffic stops in Delaware.
Background
The case began on May 17, 2024, when a police officer from the City of Lewes observed Tang driving without his headlights on at night. Instead of immediately pulling Tang over, the officer chose to follow him. The officer later witnessed Tang driving erratically, including swerving onto a bike trail and tailgating another vehicle.
After observing these additional violations outside the city limits, the officer activated his emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop. Tang admitted to drinking and subsequently failed sobriety tests, leading to his arrest for DUI. Before the trial, Tang filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that the initial traffic violations could not be considered because the officer did not activate his mobile video recorder (MVR) until after the stop.
The Ruling
The Delaware Supreme Court, composed of Chief Justice Seitz and Justices Valihura and Griffiths, ruled unanimously to affirm the lower court's decision. The court found that the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop Tang based on the totality of the circumstances, including the initial traffic violations witnessed by the officer.
The court stated, "Sergeant Moyer possessed reasonable articulable suspicion to stop Tang. We have held that a single traffic violation is sufficient for a court to find that reasonable articulable suspicion existed to stop a person’s vehicle."
Additionally, the court ruled that the officer was not required to activate the MVR during the initial observations of Tang's driving. The court noted that Delaware law does not impose an affirmative duty on police officers to record all DUI investigations. The court also found that the evidence of Tang's blood alcohol content (BAC) was admissible, despite the absence of a manufacturer-generated manual for the breathalyzer used.
Impact
This ruling reinforces the standards for police conduct during traffic stops in Delaware. It clarifies that police officers are not obligated to record every interaction, and that reasonable suspicion can be based on the totality of observed behaviors, even if some evidence is not recorded. This case may serve as a precedent for future DUI cases where similar arguments about evidence admissibility and police procedure arise.
Furthermore, the court's decision affirms the importance of police discretion in assessing situations that warrant traffic stops. The ruling may influence how future cases are handled, particularly those involving DUI charges and the admissibility of evidence collected during traffic stops.
What's Next
Henry Tang's conviction can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is unclear if he will pursue that option. There are no related cases pending that directly address the same issues raised in Tang's appeal.