In re: D.D., 277 A.3d 949

On Nov. 15, 2019, two Prince George’s County officers responded to a call of loud music and the smell of marijuana at an apartment building and encountered five young males, including 15‑year‑old D.D.
Officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana from the group, directed them to sit (a brief investigatory detention), and asked identifying questions; D.D. gave evasive responses and sat with his back partially turned.
While frisking the group for weapons, an officer recovered a suspected handgun (reported as a BB gun) from one companion; Sergeant Walden then patted down D.D. and found a loaded 9mm in D.D.’s waistband.
D.D. was charged with firearms offenses and moved to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful seizure and frisk; the juvenile court denied suppression and found D.D. involved.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding the odor of marijuana alone did not supply reasonable suspicion for the stop; the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reversed the intermediate court.
The Court of Appeals held: (1) the odor of marijuana alone supplies reasonable suspicion to conduct a brief Terry investigatory stop (but not probable cause to arrest), and (2) the frisk of D.D. was lawful under the totality of circumstances because officers reasonably suspected he was armed and dangerous.

Issue	State's Argument	D.D.'s Argument	Held
Whether the odor of marijuana alone provides reasonable suspicion for a brief investigatory stop	Odor remains evidence of possible criminal activity (possession ≥10 g still criminal); reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause so odor alone justifies a Terry stop	Lewis compels treating odor alone as insufficient; odor does not indicate criminal activity or quantity, so it cannot establish reasonable suspicion	Odor of marijuana alone supplies reasonable suspicion for a brief investigatory detention but not for probable‑cause arrest/search
Whether pat‑down/frisk of D.D. was lawful (reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous)	Frisk justified by totality: evasive body language, baggy/puffy clothing, officers outnumbered, odor of marijuana, trespass concern, and discovery of a weapon on a companion	No particularized suspicion of weapons as to D.D.; officer relied on a de facto blanket policy when outnumbered and neutral facts (clothing, youthful behavior) cannot justify frisk	Frisk lawful: totality (evasive behavior, companion’s weapon, clothing that could conceal, odor, and being outnumbered) gave officers reasonable suspicion D.D. was armed and dangerous

Lewis v. State, 470 Md. 1 (2020) (odor of marijuana on a person alone does not provide probable cause to arrest and search that person)
Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94 (2017) (odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle provides probable cause to search the vehicle; odor remains evidence of a crime)
Pacheco v. State, 465 Md. 311 (2019) (probable cause to search vehicle does not automatically authorize arrest/search of occupant absent probable cause person possessed a criminal amount)
Norman v. State, 452 Md. 373 (2017) (odor of marijuana alone from a vehicle with multiple occupants does not by itself justify frisks of occupants; additional circumstances required)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes brief investigative stops on reasonable suspicion and limited frisks for officer safety)
Sellman v. State, 449 Md. 526 (2016) (frisks require particularized, articulable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous; rejects routine/blanket frisking)
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (automobile exception: probable cause that vehicle contains contraband justifies warrantless search)