Ames v. State
153 A.3d 899
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 18, 2015, Officer Aungst received an anonymous tip that a Black man in gray sweatpants and a Chicago Bulls hat at Chestnut Manor had a gun in his waistband; dispatch relayed the same description later.
- Officer Aungst found petitioner Brandon Ames matching the description, accosted him, and observed him appear nervous and touch his left front pocket.
- Without a lawful Terry stop, Aungst performed an immediate pat-down and felt a soft bulge in Ames’s left front pocket.
- Aungst questioned Ames, who admitted to having needles; the officer reached into the pocket, removed a coin purse, and opened it to find narcotics and drug paraphernalia.
- Ames was convicted of possessing a fake controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, possession of heroin, and possession of drug paraphernalia; he moved to suppress the physical evidence, which was denied below.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding the frisk and subsequent search violated the Fourth Amendment for multiple independent reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anonymous tip + minimal corroboration justified a Terry stop/frisk | Tip was unreliable; corroboration only of appearance/location insufficient to support reasonable suspicion for stop or frisk | Tip corroborated appellant’s presence and clothing; justified officer contact and frisk | Court: Insufficient — anonymous tip lacked indicia of reliability to justify stop or frisk (Florida v. J.L. principle) |
| Whether officer could perform a frisk incident to a mere accosting/field questioning | No; frisk requires a constitutionally reasonable Terry stop as prerequisite | Officer proceeded for safety upon nervous behavior and pocket movements | Court: Frisk invalid — no antecedent lawful Terry stop; frisk cannot attach to mere accosting |
| Whether officer articulated particularized suspicion that detainee was armed and dangerous | Officer did not articulate specific facts showing the detainee was armed or dangerous; general nervousness and touching pocket insufficient | Officer cited nervousness, pocket movement, and being in a high-crime area as indicators of danger | Court: Articulation lacking — officer failed to specify facts supporting belief suspect was armed and dangerous |
| Whether frisk’s scope exceeded permissible pat-down (plain-feel limits) | Officer exceeded scope by probing, asking “what is this?”, reaching into pocket and opening coin purse — investigating contraband rather than weapons | Admission about needles and soft bulge justified securing items for officer safety and investigating paraphernalia | Court: Search excessive — pat-down could not justify probing, seizure, and opening of coin purse; plain-feel did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk doctrine; frisk limited to officer-safety pat-down)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (anonymous tip describing appearance/location insufficient alone to justify stop or frisk)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (anonymous tip corroborated by predictions of future behavior can supply reasonable suspicion)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) ("plain-feel" doctrine: only when officer’s touch makes identity of contraband immediately apparent may seizure follow)
- State v. Smith, 345 Md. 460 (1997) (officer safety justification for frisk limited to discovering readily accessible weapons; general exploratory searches forbidden)
- State v. Mason, 173 Md. App. 414 (2007) (warrantless searches and seizures presumptively unreasonable; State bears burden to justify)
- Gibbs v. State, 18 Md. App. 230 (1973) (frisk’s purpose is officer safety; stop and frisk require separate articulable justifications)