WPC Jv<1NENO> )+Kн'Hʾs1  f#Ԥ}wcc' q{ mcA(#P)@lh3FOy{ݖD ]F@ ^V/}@nWP% у !%OբߛQ#QcqwN4R@dZn568V矤.pG7lr0"9ׯr/pts BPK%u}gI/Ӵ~f'p_`QXwE2y` $z=ftL)ʠH/O^'Ï7kKƵ$˳[^ȼaѤ4(#!0UNQ % 0(U Fw@4Sgv mxbUF!UBgeUN BHP LaserJet 5MP,,,,,,0xhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($4 9Z+.Courier New Regular DDDD EEMq)Qd'qf3|xU $unparticulatizedarguendoviolativeDickersonSegalman- -yL AZ.Arial Black Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpix9 Z6Times New Roman Regular d !  ݛX0PXXX   8XXdd8  Headnote: InRe:DavidS., No.2357,SeptemberTerm1999.   CONSTITUTIONFOURTHAMENDMENTSTOPANDFRISK Reasonable z suspicionofcriminalactivityjustifiedthestopofjuveniledefendant,whereapoliceofficerwatchedthejuveniledisappearbehindanabandonedtransformerbuildingwhilehiscompanionstoodlookout.Policedidnothaveprobablecause,however,toorderthejuveniletotheground,placehiminhandcuffs,pullabagfromunderhisshirt,andexplorethecontentsofthebag.SuchpoliceconductoversteppedtheboundaryofacircumscribedTerryfrisk.  b   e  XXXX<  jXX REPORTED #XXj# @ INTHECOURTOFSPECIALAPPEALS p OFMARYLAND  P No.2357SeptemberTerm,1999___________________________________INRE:DAVIDS.___________________________________     p Sonner,   p Wenner,*   p Thieme,*     p      x JJ.___________________________________@/OpinionbySonner,J.___________________________________Filed:#X<XXXy#November29,2000 &8"+   *WennerandThieme,JJ.participatedinthehearingandconferenceofthiscasewhileactivemembersofthisCourt;theyparticipatedintheadoptionofthisopinionasretired,speciallyassignedmembersofthisCourt. -(3        TheDistrictCourtofMarylandforMontgomeryCounty,sittingasaJuvenileCourt,foundappellant,DavidS.,tobeinvolvedinthecrimeofpossessionofcocainewithintenttodistribute.ThecourtadjudicatedDaviddelinquentandplacedhimonprobation,inthecustodyofhismother.Heraisesthefollowingquestionsforourreview:0  I.8` (#(#Didthetrialjudgeerrindenyingappellants   motiontosuppresscocainethatwasillegallyseized? ` `  0  II.8` (#(#Didthetrialjudgeerrinrefusingtoallow `  defensecounseltoestablishatthesuppressionhearingthattheseizingofficerknewtheobjecthegrabbedwasnotahandgunassoonashetouchedit? ` `  ; WeresolvethefirstissueinDavidsfavorand,accordingly,reverse.We declinetoaddress  donotreach thesecondissue.  OntheeveningofMarch30,1999,CorporalRichSegalman,atwelveyearveteranoftheRockvilleCityPoliceDepartment,observedahouseonMooreDrive,thesiteofwhatthepolicemaintainwasanopenairdrugmarket.Atabout8:00p.m.,Cpl.SegalmansawwhathebelievedtobeadrugtransactionbetweenPedroHall,aknowndrugdealer,andanotherman.Atabout8:30p.m.,Cpl.SegalmanobservedHallandDavidS.nearanabandonedtransformerbuilding,whichhadbeenboardedupforseveralmonths.Davidwalkedbehindthebuilding,whileHallstoodlookout.Afewminuteslater,Davidemerged,pulledanobjectfromhispocket,andshowedittoHall.Next,Davidstuffedtheobjectintothefrontwaistbandofhispants.Atthesuppressionhearing,Cpl.Segalmantestifiedthat,basedonhisextensiveexperienceswithdrug -(1  arrestsandtraininginnarcotics,hebelievedDavidstuffedahandgunintohiswaistband.  AstheybegantowalkbacktowardMooreDrive,Cpl.Segalmanradioedtootherofficerstostopthem.CorporalSegalmanthencametowheretheywerestopped,placedthemonthegroundintheproneposition,andhandcuffedthem.HerolledDavidoverontohisback,touchedtheareaofDavidswaistband,andfeltahardobject.Believingtheobjectwasagun,Cpl.SegalmanpulledoutDavidstuckedinshirtandobservedablackobjectprotrudingfromhiswaistband,confirminghisbeliefthattheobjectwasahandgun.HeremovedtheobjectfromDavidswaistband,notedthatitwaswrappedinablackplasticbag,openedthebag,andfoundcocaine.DavidS.arguesthatthestop,frisk,andultimatesearchandseizureofthecontentsoftheblackplasticbagviolatedtheFourthAmendmentand,thus,anyfruitsoftheunconstitutionalsearchmustbesuppressed.  TheFourthAmendment,applicabletothestatesthroughtheFourteenthAmendment,Mappv.Ohio,367U.S.643,81S.Ct.1684, !l" 6L.Ed.2d1081(1961),statesthat therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papers,andeffects,againstunreasonablesearchesandseizures,shallnotbeviolated.U.S. ,&|!( Const.amend.XIV.Theamendmentprotectsapersonsreasonable '(#*  expectationofprivacy.Terryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,9,88S.Ct. )$, 1868,20L.Ed.2d889(1968)(citingKatzv.UnitedStates,389U.S. <+&. 347,351,88S.Ct.507,19L.Ed.2d576(1967)).AsearchthatisreasonableinitsinceptionmayturnviolativeoftheFourthAmendmentthroughitsintensityandscope.Terry,392U.S.at18. X AsJusticeFortaswrote,thescopeofasearch mustbetiedtoandjustifiedbythecircumstancesthatrendereditsinitiationpermissible.Wardenv.Hayden,387U.S.294,310,87S.Ct.1642,  h  18L.Ed.2d782(1967)(Fortas,J.,concurring).  InTerry,theSupremeCourtheldthat,evenwithoutprobable |  cause,apoliceofficercanstopandbrieflydetainapersonforinvestigativepurposesiftheofficerhasreasonablesuspicion,supportedbyarticulablefacts,thatcriminalactivity maybeafoot.UnitedStatesv.Sokolow,490U.S.1,7,109S.Ct.1581, 8 104L.Ed.2d1(1989)(citingTerry,392U.S.at30).Anofficer @ makingaTerrystopmustfurnishmorethanan inchoateand  unparticulatizedsuspicionorhunch.Sokolow,490U.S.at7 ` (citingTerry,392U.S.at27).Indeed, [w]hilereasonable h suspicionisalessdemandingstandardthanprobablecauseandrequiresashowingconsiderablylessthanpreponderanceoftheevidence,theFourthAmendmentrequiresatleastaminimallevelofobjectivejustificationformakingthestop.Illinoisv.Wardlow, $$ & 528U.S.119,120S.Ct.673,145L.Ed.2d570(2000).Inevaluatingtheexistenceofreasonablesuspicion,courtsconsider thetotalityofthecircumstances"thewholepicture.Sokolow,490 )4%, U.S.at8(citingUnitedStatesv.Cortez,449U.S.411,417,101 +&. S.Ct.690,66L.Ed.2d621(1981)).  Intheinstantcase,Cpl.SegalmangavetwobasesforstoppingDavid.Initially,hewassuspiciousofDavidbecausehewasassociatingwithHall,whotheofficerhadrecentlyobservedinadrugsale.Apersonspresencewitharecognizeddrugsource,however,isnotenoughtosupportareasonableandarticulablesuspicionthatcriminalityisafoot.Sibronv.NewYork,392U.S.   40,62,88S.Ct.1889,20L.Ed.2d917(1968)( Theinferencethatpersonswhotalktonarcoticsaddicts[ordealers]areengagedinthecriminaltrafficinnarcoticsissimplynotthesortofreasonableinferencerequiredtosupportanintrusionbythepoliceuponanindividualspersonalsecurity.);InReAppealNo.113,23  p Md.App.255,260,326A.2d754(1974).CorporalSegalmanalsostatedthathesuspectedHallandDavidofburglarizing,orattemptingtoburglarize,theabandonedtransformerbuilding.Initsbrief,theStateemphasizedthat,atthetimeoftheburglary,itwasdark,thebuildingwasvacant,andHallappearedtostandlookoutasDaviddisappearedbehindthebuildingforseveralminutes.Weagreethat these  sucharticulated circumstancescouldamounttoreasonablesuspicionandlegitimizeaTerrystopofDavidS. $&   Althoughareasonablestopisanecessarypredecessortoareasonablefrisk,areasonablefriskdoesnotinevitablyfollowinthewakeofeveryreasonablestop.Gibbsv.State,18Md. )$, App.230,23839,306A.2d587(1973).Turningtothefrisk,we T+&. areonceagainguidedbyTerryanditsprogeny. [W]henanofficer  isjustifiedinbelievingthattheindividualwhosesuspiciousbehaviorheisinvestigatingatcloserangeisarmedandpresentlydangeroustotheofficerortoothers,theofficermayconductapatdownsearch todeterminewhetherthepersonisinfactcarryingaweapon.Minnesotav.Dickerson,508U.S.366,373,113  h  S.Ct.2130,124L.Ed.2d334(1993)(citingTerry,392U.S.at24).   Because thepurposeofthislimitedsearchisnottodiscoverevidenceofcrime,buttoallowtheofficertopursuehisinvestigationwithoutfearofviolence,Adamsv.Williams,407 0 U.S.143,146,92S.Ct.1921,32L.Ed.2d612(1972),thesearchmustbeconfinedtofindingweaponsthatmightplacetheofficerorthepublicindanger.Dickerson,508U.S.at373(citingTerry, @ 392U.S.at26);Statev.Smith,345Md.460,465,693A.2d749  (1997).  InSibronv.NewYork,392U.S.40,62,88S.Ct.1889,20  \ L.Ed.2d917(1968),decidedthesamedayasTerry,theSupreme   CourtoverturnedSibronsheroinconvictionbecausethesearchthatledtothedrugswasnotpremisedonprobablecause,anditwentbeyondtheprotectivefrisksanctionedinTerry.Theapprehending $$ & officerobservedSibronconversingwithknownheroinaddictsthroughoutaneighthourperiod.HethenapproachedSibron,toldhim, YouknowwhatIamafter,andthrusthishandintoSibronspocket,locatingthedrugs.Inoverturningtheconviction,the +&. Courtstated:8  8`   Thepoliceofficerisnotentitledtoseizeandsearcheverypersonwhomheseesonthestreetorofwhomhemakesinquiries.Beforeheplacesahandonthepersonofacitizeninsearchofanything,hemusthaveconstitutionallyadequate,reasonablegroundsfordoingso.Inthecaseoftheselfprotectivesearchforweapons,hemustbeabletopointtoparticularfactsfromwhichhereasonablyinferredthattheindividualwasarmedanddangerous. ` x` x +ӢSibron,392U.S.at64(citingTerry,392U.S.1,88S.Ct.1868, j  20L.Ed.2d889(1968)). ̜  h Here,Cpl.Segalmansconductranafoulof "r  thefriskproscriptionsenumeratedinTerryandSibron.TheState  arguesthatCpl.Segalmanwas reasonablycertainthattheobjectinDavidswaistbandwaseitheragunorillegalsubstances.ATerryfrisk,however,cannotbeperformedtodiscoverevidence. . Smith,345Md.at465.TheStatefurtherarguesthat,sinceCpl.  Segalmanwasnotsurewhethertheblackbagcontainedaweapon,hewasentitledtoinspecttheinsideofthebagtocompletelyallayhissuspicion. [T]herighttoconductaTerry[frisk,however,]   doesnotgivethepolicetherighttomakeabsolutelysurethatnoweaponispresent.Id.at471(quotingAguilarv.State,88Md.  #Z$ App.276,286,594A.2d1167(1991)).Underthecircumstances,Cpl.SegalmanwouldhavebeenjustifiedtosubjectDavidtoapatdown.Toorderhimtothegroundandplacehiminhandcuffs,however,requiredprobablecause,whichtheofficerfailedtodemonstrate.CorporalSegalmanthentookthemoreintrusivesteps r+&. ofliftingDavidsshirttoexposetheblackbagandexploringthecontentsofthebag.AsinSibron,heclearlyoversteppedthe \ boundaryofa strictlycircumscribedsearch.Terry,392U.S.at d 26.  WerewetopermitCpl.Segalmantoconfirmonlyasuspicionthatthesuspectwasinpossessionofcontrabandbysearchingthesuspectincidenttoastopinwhichthesuspectislaidprone,handcuffed,andsearchedforweapons,wewouldbeextendingTerry |  farbeyonditsoriginalrationale.Weare sensitivetothedanger 4  ...thatofficerswillenlargeaspecificauthorization,furnishedbyawarrantoranexigency,intotheequivalentofageneralwarranttorummageandseizeatwill.Dickerson,508U.S. 8 at378(citingTexasv.Brown,460U.S.730,748,103S.Ct.1535, @ 75L.Ed.2d502(1983)(Stevens,J.,concurring)). The lawenforcement cioommunity  mustreadTerrysexceptionofwarrantless T stopsandfrisksintandemwithSibronsbridledapplicationof  \ thatexception. JUDGMENTREVERSED;CASEREMANDEDTO p!" THEJUVENILECOURTOFMONTGOMERYCOUNTYFORFURTHERPROCEEDINGSCONSISTENTWITHTHISOPINION.COSTSTOBEPAIDBYMONTGOMERYCOUNTY.  &"(   +T&-  X XXXp&r XXp&    ANDREWL.SONNER#r   9#w r #Xp&X r+9#  ASSOCIATEJUDGE50MarylandAvenue,Room#302Rockville,Maryland20850(240)7779320  November27,2000!     69  #Xp&XXXen9#XeXXXp&Hon.JosephF.Murphy,Jr.  R  ЀChiefJudgeHon.CharlesE.Moylan,Jr.Hon.ArrieW.DavisHon.EllenL.HollanderHon.JamesP.SalmonHon.JamesR.EylerHon.RaymondG.Thieme,Jr.Hon.JamesA.Kenney,III#Xp&XXXe:#X6XXXp& B #Xp&XXX6;#XeXXXp&Hon.DeborahS.Byrnes  Z Hon.SallyD.AdkinsHon.PeterB.Krauser#Xp&XXXe!<#XeXXXp&     `  Re:0  InRe:DavidS. B(#(#    `    No.2357   `    SeptemberTerm,1999   `    (SubmittedonbriefJune16,2000)DearJudges:    Iencloseforyourreviewaproposedopinionintheabovematter,whichIplantosubmitforpublication.Asalways,Iwouldappreciateyourcommentsandsuggestions.   `     h   Sincerely,   `     h   #Xp&XXXe<#X6XXXp&*XX6 Andy #X6X*?##Xp&XXX6?# "4&    `     h   ANDREWL.SONNEREnclosurecc:XeXXXp&Hon.WilliamW.Wenner#Xp&XXXe@#,retired  (p#, P.S.toJudgesWennerandThieme:Thisopinionisidenticaltotheoneyoureadandapprovedaspanelmembers.