The officer had reasonable suspicion but he asked for consent to search defendant’s person for a weapon, which he granted. It was consensual on the totality. Defendant didn’t make a state constitutional argument in the trial court but did on appeal. (Even if not waived,) State interpretation of consent is the same as under the Fourth Amendment. Scott v. State, 2020 Md. App. LEXIS 734 (July 29, 2020):
Weider had believed he had more than a hunch that Scott was carrying a handgun – i.e., that he had reasonable suspicion – he would have patted Scott down. Apparently, he did not believe he had reasonable suspicion, so he took the next logical, safety-driven action: asking Scott for permission to search the pocket he was grabbing.
A complete overview of the circumstances reveals a “legitimate need” for a consent to search with “the equally important requirement” that the consent to search was given willingly, not by coercion that overbore Scott’s freedom to decide for himself whether to allow Officer Weider to search his pocket. See Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227.
Under the total circumstances, Scott’s consent was voluntary.