STATE OF MARYLAND v. JAMAL RASHEED SIZER
Court of Special Appeals, Moylan, Nov. 29, 2016,
Terry Stop – For Terry purposes, a “high-crime area” need not be as violent as Wardlow‘s south Chicago.

Affirmed on other grounds by COA

(Concur – Graeff- Agrees that stop was valid, evidence shouldn’t be excluded even if stop invalid, but disagrees and thinks the “but-for”/”attenuation” analysis is proper)
(Judge Moylan writes individually to explain the difference between Attenuation, Independent Source, and Inevitable Discovery)

I feel like a terrible person for criticizing a Moylan opinion, but he (or his law clerk) did a terrible job handling the question he admits is “interesting”: what constitutes a “high-crime area” under Wardlow? He dismisses it with a snide remark (1 page for Moylan is a sneer for most people) but conflates subjective and objective analysis. A more considered approach would have been VERY helpful. Also, how do you compare “the wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are bold as a lion” to Terry instead of Wardlow???

Facts:
Defendant was in a group of 5-7 people in the parking lot of a library in Columbia, Maryland. The area was considered a “high or higher-crime area in Columbia” due in part to recent robberies and a report of a man with a handgun the night before. The area was considered high-crime enough to warrant a police satellite office nearby and a bike-patrol unit.
Officers observed the group “passing an alcoholic beverage back and forth.” One member of the group threw a glass bottle on the ground. Police on bicycles approached the group and identified themselves, saying “Police. Stop. Don’t run.” The officers were in uniform, wearing bright-blue jackets with “Police” in prominent letters. At that point, the Defendant “turned and immediately began sprinting away.” He was the only one in the group that ran.
Officers caught up to him and took him down as the Defendant threw up his hands and yelled, “Okay, I have a pistol. I have a pistol.” During the takedown, his backpack fell off of him. As he was handcuffed, he announced “I have a piece and pills on me.”
Officers conducted a frisk and opened the backpack, finding a .38-caliber revolver in the backpack. Search incident to arrest, they located 27 pills in his sock.
At trial, the judge suppressed the evidence, stating that it was unreasonable “for the police to run after [the Defendant]”. Moreover, the trial court held that the gun could have been legal, and so the police shouldn’t have tackled/handcuffed him.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed, reminding the trial court that the 4th Amendment doesn’t come into play until the police actually stop the suspect (not when they chase them) and that a Terry frisk is done to protect the officer, not because the weapon is illegal.

Citing the Supreme Court in Hodari D., “The word “seizure” readily bears the meaning of a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is ultimately unsuccessful. (“She seized the purse-snatcher, but he broke out of her grasp.”) It does not remotely apply, however, to the prospect of a policeman yelling “Stop, in the name of the law!” at a fleeing form that continues to flee. That is no seizure.”

Use of Force- “A Terry stop is a lawful exercise of governmental authority, not a mere request that may be disregarded. A suspect who physically resists being detained can be physically restrained. That includes being tackled and/or being handcuffed”

Seizure- To quote the Supreme Court in Adams v. Williams, “[t]he Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape.”

RAS- Where the police have no reason to stop someone, that person may continue to go about their business. They can stay or leave. But flight is not “a mere refusal to cooperate” and is not “going about one’s business.”

“Had the Defendant simply stood quietly by, as did his companions, he would have been immune from any police restraint, but a guilty conscience leads to flawed judgment. It was only when the appellee, unwisely, turned and began to flee that he turned the focus onto himself and elevated what had only been non-particularized suspicion into highly particularized and highly individualized suspicion.”

Frisk- Based on the defendant’s admission that he had a handgun, the “immediate opening of the backpack would have been constitutionally proper as a Terry frisk”

Even if the defendant had been illegally stopped, he had two outstanding arrest warrants. Therefore, under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Utah v. Strieff