JAMAL SIZER v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Greene, Nov. 28, 2017,
Reasonable suspicion – Flight from the police by a member of a group that just threw a glass bottle in public provided reasonable suspicion for a stop

Affirming COSA opinion on other grounds

(Concur in part and dissent in part – Adkins and Hotten – The stop was illegal, but was attenuated by the arrest warrant)

The fact section here doesn’t quite match the COSA opinion for some reason…

Facts:
In 2015, a Howard County bicycle patrol unit was in Columbia, MD when they observed a group of 5-7 individuals gathered on a library parking lot.
Officers testified that the Owen Brown Village Center was a “high” or “higher” crime area compared to other parts of Columbia, MD. They testified that there was an “increase in calls for service and just general issues” and that it was a “high crime” area. Officers testified that there was an ongoing issue with robberies in the area of Owen Brown and that there was a report the day before of an individual displaying a handgun in the “footpaths and fields that abut up to the village center.”
At trial, the officers did not connect crime in “the area” with the library parking lot by explaining how far one was from the other. The State apparently did not ask and the officers did not directly explain whether the parking lot was part of this “high crime” area or how close the reported handgun was to the parking lot.
The group appeared “loud and disorderly” and were passing around what appeared to be an open alcohol container. While observing, officers saw a glass bottle thrown by a member of the group and strike the ground, though the officers were uncertain of who threw the bottle.
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, Sizer “turned and immediately began sprinting away.” He was the only one in the group that ran.
Officers caught up to Sizer and tackled him as he threw up his hands and yelled, “Okay, I have a pistol. I have a pistol.” During the takedown, Sizer’s backpack fell off of him. As he was handcuffed, he announced “I have a piece and pills on me.”
One of the officers recognized Sizer and knew that he had an open arrest warrant. A check confirmed that he had a warrant for his arrest.
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.
Sizer requested review by the Court of Appeals.
Sizer claimed that “flight is merely a display of a citizen’s constitutional right to ignore the police and go about his business.”

Held:
The Court of Appeals disagreed with Sizer. Police had reasonable suspicion to stop him based on the littering and open container violations. Moreover, running from the police is not “going about one’s business.” Even if the stop was illegal, the open arrest warrant would have attenuated the bad stop.

Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion (RAS) – The RAS required for a stop must be based on facts that would suggest to a reasonable officer that criminal activity is occurring or is about to occur.

RAS- RAS is based on the totality of the circumstances. It does not deal with “hard certainties,” but rather allows for a stop based on a reasonable belief based on facts that crime is afoot.

RAS – An individual’s unprovoked flight or presence in a high crime area, or both, are individual factors that may contribute to reasonable suspicion

Flight – Officers are not required to “simply shrug their shoulders and allow an apparent criminal to escape.”

Flight – While Wardlow is still “good law,” it is also not a hard rule that every flight from police gives RAS. The flight must suggest criminal activity.

Flight – Unprovoked flight from the police in a high crime area would provide reasonable suspicion for a stop, but police must also consider whether any facts take away from that reasonable suspicion before the stop can be justified.

Note: This does not mean that flight is irrelevant. The Court is saying that an officer can’t ignore everything else that’s happening. Some circumstances might suggest to a reasonable officer that no crime is occurring despite people running away. For example, a group of small children might run from the police while laughing as neighbors calmly look on. This would not provide reasonable suspicion to stop them because circumstances suggest that there is no criminal activity.

High Crime Area – Officers are not required to ignore the relevant characteristics of a location in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation.

Note: The term “high crime area” is not as helpful as connecting crime in the area to the crime that is suspected. The fact that there is a high rate of shoplifting does not make it more likely that the security check you observed was an illegal firearm. Similarly, the number of shootings in the area does not explain why you believed the suspect was shoplifting.

High Crime Area – Crime in “the area” must be specific enough to show how it relates to the location where the stop occurred.

From the Case: Because police failed to connect the library parking lot to the crime occurring in various parts of Columbia (whether Owen Brown Village crime or the handgun violation that was reported somewhere in the area), the nature of the area could not be considered at all.

Practice Note: While pinmap charts are not necessary, it is important to explain how the nature of the area where the stop happened made it more likely that crime was occurring.

Search – Exclusionary Rule – Attenuation – Evidence recovered from a suspect search incident to a valid arrest warrant need not be excluded even where the initial detention lacked reasonable suspicion