250 A.3d 284
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2021Background
- Juvenile D.D. (15) was among five males encountered by Prince George’s County officers responding to a call about people “playing music and smoking CDS” in an apartment building.
- Officers arrived ~32 minutes after the call and smelled a strong odor of marijuana upon opening the building door.
- The group gave evasive, uncooperative answers when asked who lived in the building; D.D. was evasive and responded crudely when asked where he lived.
- Officers, outnumbered, ordered the group to sit; after frisking another individual (a BB gun found), Officer Walden patted down D.D. and felt the butt of a handgun, recovering a loaded 9 mm.
- D.D. moved to suppress the gun, arguing the stop and frisk lacked reasonable articulable suspicion; the juvenile court denied the motion and found him involved on the charges.
- On appeal the Court of Special Appeals held that the odor of marijuana, by itself, does not provide reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and reversed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | D.D.'s Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether odor of marijuana alone supplies reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop | Odor alone cannot support a stop because small amounts are decriminalized and smell does not indicate a criminal quantity | Odor remains a relevant indicator and can justify a brief investigatory stop (lesser intrusion than arrest) | Odor of marijuana alone does not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; stop was unreasonable |
| Whether frisk/seizure of the handgun was justified | Frisk lacked particularized suspicion D.D. was armed and dangerous; officers merely outnumbered | Officer safety and evasive behavior justified pat-down | Court reversed on stop ground; because stop was unlawful, pat-down leading to gun recovery was not justified on that basis (court did not rest the decision on a separate frisk rule) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. State, 470 Md. 1 (odor of marijuana alone does not provide probable cause to arrest)
- Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94 (odor of marijuana may provide probable cause to search a vehicle under the automobile exception)
- Pacheco v. State, 465 Md. 311 (facts supporting a vehicle search do not necessarily support an arrest of an occupant)
- Norman v. State, 452 Md. 373 (odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle does not, by itself, provide reasonable suspicion to frisk all occupants)
- Cortez v. United States, 449 U.S. 411 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (reasonable suspicion for brief seizures is less than probable cause but requires particularized, objective basis)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (framework permitting investigatory stops and limited frisks)