In re Jeremy P.
11 A.3d 830
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, sitting as a juvenile court, found Jeremy P. involved in carrying a handgun, possessing a regulated firearm and ammunition under 21, and obliterating the firearm’s serial number.
- Detective William Lee, in plainclothes, observed appellant (17) exiting a McDonald’s in a high-crime area and making movements near his waistband.
- Lee initiated a stop after watching waistband adjustments and movements, calling for a partner to assist.
- Appellant was detained, pat-searched, and a firearm and bullets were recovered; appellant waived counsel and gave a statement at the station.
- The juvenile court denied the suppression motion, ruling the stop was justified by Lee’s observed behavior and experience.
- The Court of Special Appeals reviews suppression rulings de novo for the ultimate question of Fourth Amendment compliance, while deferring to the trial court’s fact-finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Ransome controls; waistband movements alone not enough | Lee’s training/experience and high-crime context justify suspicion | No reasonable suspicion; suppression reversed |
| Whether the ensuing search and statement were admissible | Stop was unlawfully extended; evidence tainted | Evidence derived from a valid stop and plausible safety concerns | Suppression of evidence and statement affirmed; remand for new proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ransome v. State, 373 Md. 99 (Md. 2003) (bulge in pocket alone insufficient for stop; need articulable facts)
- Padilla, 548 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008) (waistband adjustment can support suspicion with factual detail; must be explained)
- Marine v. State, 142 A.D.2d 368 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989) (lack of describable object or conduct negates reasonable suspicion)
- Singleton v. United States, 998 A.2d 295 (D.C. 2010) (contextual factors plus waistband movement can establish suspicion with detail)
- Padilla v. United States, 548 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008) (demonstrations can supplement narrative to justify stop when fact pattern supports)
- Crosby v. State, 408 Md. 490 (Md. 2009) (standard for reviewing suppression findings; not rubber-stamping police action)