JAMAR HOLT v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Barbera, Filed Oct. 28, 2013
http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2013/98a12.pdf
Terry Stop- Where a known drug-dealer was observed distributing drugs two weeks earlier; reasonable, articulable suspicion existed to stop a suspect when he met with that drug dealer in a similar fashion.

The Court of Appeals held that RAS existed where: “(1) Blue was a known drug dealer; (2) Blue distributed drugs to Townsend approximately two weeks before his meeting with Petitioner; (3) both Townsend and Petitioner were waiting for Blue at specific locations when he arrived at the meetings; (4) both meetings lasted approximately two minutes; (5) both Townsend and Petitioner parted ways with Blue after the meetings; (6) Blue looked around throughout both meetings; (7) Blue did not look around at the North Avenue Courthouse; (8) Petitioner and Blue moved from a public space to the private interior of Petitioner’s Jeep; and (9) after his court appearance in Baltimore City, Blue drove to Baltimore County, where he exited an apartment carrying a sandwich-size Rubbermaid container, and then immediately returned to an area of Baltimore City not far from the courthouse he had visited earlier that morning, to meet Petitioner.”

Because the CoA found that RAS existed, they did not reach the second issue (if the stop was bad, whether Defendant’s actions in pointing a gun at a police officer and driving his car at a police officer attenuated the taint of the stop)

Dissent by Greene, who misstates the facts as found by the trial court in order to bolster his argument (there being a significant difference between Greene’s dismissive characterization of the offense as “possessing a gun” and the trial court’s finding of fact that the defendant “point[ed] a handgun directly at Detective McShane”)

The Totality Of The Circumstances Test
– The totality-of-the-circumstances test used to determine RAS contains two interdependent analytical techniques:
– First, the assessment must be based upon all the circumstances and various objective observations, including consideration of the modes or patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers. From this, a trained officer draws inferences and makes deductions that might well elude an untrained person.
– Second, the process described must raise a suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing.

Other notes from the case:
– Status as a known drug dealer is a factor to be considered in determining whether RAS existed
– “A meeting with a known drug addict or dealer does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion that a drug transaction occurred.” The characteristics of that meeting, however, including demeanor and activity prior to the meeting, may provide that. Limiting Sibron v. New York
– The appropriate test for RAS is not what the investigating officer articulated, but whether, looking at the record as a whole, a reasonable officer in those circumstances would have reasonably believed petitioner was engaged in criminal activity.