JA-19-0409 Argued: JanuIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Case No. and his companions, the discovery of what was claimed to be a BB gun on one of the other young men in the group, D.D.’s baggy clothing, the officers’ smelling the odor of marijuana, their concern that the group was trespassing, and the fact that the officers were outnumbered five to two. The factors supporting reasonable suspicion included the evasive behavior and body language of D.D. was armed and dangerous, based on the totality of the circumstances. FOURTH AMENDMENT – SEARCHES AND SEIZURES – PAT-DOWN FOR WEAPONS – REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE SUSPECT IS ARMED AND DANGEROUS – The Court of Appeals held that the officer who frisked D.D. Thus, the Court held that the initial detention of D.D., based solely on the odor of marijuana, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This distinction makes sense, given the differing level of intrusion associated with an arrest compared to an investigative detention. ![]() Although that odor, without more, does not provide probable cause to arrest a person for a criminal possession of marijuana, it does meet the less stringent standard of reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop. Possession of 10 grams or more of marijuana remains a criminal offense in Maryland, and the odor of marijuana, therefore, remains evidence of a crime. The Court of Appeals held that the odor of marijuana gives rise to reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot, and thus provides the basis for a brief investigatory detention. After being charged with firearms offenses, D.D. for weapons, one of the officers discovered a loaded gun in D.D.’s waistband. FOURTH AMENDMENT – SEARCHES AND SEIZURES – INVESTIGATORY DETENTIONS – REASONABLE SUSPICION BASED ON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA – D.D., a juvenile, and his four companions were detained by police officers after the officers smelled the odor of marijuana coming from the group. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the odor of marijauna provides reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to conduct a brief investigatory detention and (2) the officers in the instant case had reasonable suspicion to detain D.D., and therefore, the pat-down that led to the discovery of the gun on D.D. In reversing the juvenile court's denial of D.D.'s suppression motion, the court of special appeals held that the investigatory detention of D.D., which was based solely on the order of marijuana, violated the Fourth Amendment. 1 (2020), that the odor of marijuana alone does not provide probable cause to believe that the person is in possession of a criminal amount of the drug, to an investigatory detention. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the court of special appeals reversing the judgment of the circuit court, sitting as the juvenile court, denying D.D.'s motion to suppress evidence of a loaded gun found by law enforcement officers in D.D.'s waistband, holding that there was no constitutional violation in this case.Īt issue in this case was whether this Court should extend the holding in Lewis v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |