MD: Under Bruen, mere possession of a handgun outside the home is no longer RS; Terry stop doesn’t include looking in a bag

Bruen changed the law, and possession of a firearm outside the home is no longer reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop. Also, a Terry stop is a patdown of clothing, not looking into a bag being carried. Hicks v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 654 (June 4, 2026). Syllabus by the court:

In New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 10 (2022), the United States Supreme Court substantially changed the legal landscape with its holding that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. This ruling, among other things, changes the analysis for whether possession of a gun justifies an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment. Although the Maryland appellate courts have, for decades, upheld police stops based on reasonable suspicion that a person is in possession of a gun, after Bruen, carrying a handgun publicly for self-defense is presumptively lawful, and therefore, mere possession of a concealed firearm, by itself, is not indicative of criminal activity. The mere possibility that a person with a gun might not have a valid license or otherwise may be restricted from possessing a gun is not enough to establish reasonable suspicion for a seizure. The police must have reasonable suspicion that the person is possessing the gun illegally or otherwise engaged in criminal activity. Because the officers here stopped appellant based solely on his possession of a gun, without reasonable suspicion that he was possessing the gun illegally or otherwise involved in criminal activity, they did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him.

We reject appellant’s claim that, after Bruen, an officer may not conduct a Terry frisk for officer safety when a suspect lawfully stopped is armed. Because a gun is a dangerous weapon, officers may frisk a suspect carrying a gun regardless of whether the suspect is carrying the gun legally or illegally. There is no dispute here that appellant was armed with a handgun. Had there been a proper stop, the police had reasonable suspicion to frisk appellant.

The police also exceeded the scope of a Terry frisk by reaching into appellant’s bag and pockets. A Terry frisk is limited to a pat-down of outer clothing unless the police show that a pat-down would be insufficient to determine whether a suspect was armed and dangerous. The State did not make that showing here. Moreover, the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the plain view and plain feel doctrines applied to justify the seizure of the drugs and gun. The officer who conducted the pat-down and found the second gun and drugs did not testify, and there was no evidence regarding what that officer observed in the bag prior to reaching inside. There also was no testimony that, based on what the officer felt during the pat-down, it was immediately apparent to him that appellant’s pocket contained contraband.

The stop and frisk here were unconstitutional. The court erred in denying the motion to suppress.

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.