Underwood v. State, 101 A.3d 514

At 10:59 p.m. on Jan. 16, 2011, Corporal Crouch lawfully stopped Torian Underwood for driving 58 mph in a 35 mph zone.
Underwood sat rigidly in the car with eyes fixed forward, hands in his lap; officer observed bulging front pockets on Underwood’s jacket when the dome light came on.
Officer ran tags and, using a cell phone, checked criminal history and learned Underwood was on probation for a prior handgun possession.
Officer called a K-9 unit and asked Underwood to exit the vehicle; Underwood refused and remained immobile.
When officers began to remove him, Underwood moved his right hand toward his right front pants pocket; officer frisked that pocket and immediately felt a handgun (and later found a razor knife and baggies of crack cocaine).
Suppression motion denied; Underwood convicted of multiple counts and sentenced. He appealed, arguing the frisk lacked reasonable suspicion under Terry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct a frisk (pat-down) of Underwood	Underwood: Bulges in jacket alone insufficient under Ransome; officer limited his suspicion to those bulges, so frisk was unjustified	State: Officer relied on the totality — bulging pockets, unusually stoic behavior, officer’s knowledge of prior handgun probation, and defendant’s furtive motion toward his pocket — forming reasonable suspicion	Court affirmed: frisk reasonable under Terry when viewed holistically (prior handgun conviction, demeanor, bulges, and movement supported frisk)

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk standard: officer must have specific, articulable facts to justify frisk)
Ransome v. State, 373 Md. 99, 816 A.2d 901 (2003) (bulge alone insufficient where officer failed to explain why bulge suggested a weapon)
Crosby v. State, 408 Md. 490, 970 A.2d 894 (2009) (endorses holistic evaluation of facts and rejects ‘‘divide-and-conquer’’ analysis)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (courts must assess the totality of circumstances and give due weight to officers’ inferences)
Dashiell v. State, 374 Md. 85, 821 A.2d 372 (2003) (officers may frisk when reliable information indicates weapons are present)
Faulkner v. State, 301 Md. 482, 483 A.2d 759 (1984) (upholding stop-and-frisk based on fit with description and contextual factors)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (discusses officer safety considerations in traffic stops)