By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
The Appellate Court of Maryland has ruled that Baltimore police went too far in July 2023 when they stopped and searched a man who was carrying a concealed pistol, but then searched a satchel he was carrying, even after the man told them he was licensed to carry.
Steven Hicks was indicted on “multiple drug and firearm offenses,” according to Yahoo News, but the Appeals Court handed down a ruling that Hicks’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated because they relied “solely on their suspicion that he had a firearm.” The court further said Detective Alex Rodriguez “exceeded the scope of a Terry frisk” when he searched Hicks’ pockets and the satchel he carried.
The 130-page ruling and three concurring opinions “and could meaningfully change police departments’ stop-and-frisk practices across the state,” Yahoo reported.
Weighing in on this decision, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in a prepared statement the ruling is “another step toward placing more limits on government’s ability to interfere with the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.”
“The Hicks ruling is a wake-up call to Maryland police they can no longer treat a constitutional right like a regulated privilege,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “As the court opinion noted, the subsequent search of Hicks and a satchel he was carrying was unconstitutional.”
Writing for the court, Judge Kathryn Grill Graeff observed, “The mere possibility that a person with a gun might not have a valid license or otherwise may be restricted from possessing a gun is not enough to establish reasonable suspicion for a seizure. The police must have reasonable suspicion that the person is possessing the gun illegally or otherwise engaged in criminal activity. Because the officers here stopped appellant based solely on his possession of a gun, without reasonable suspicion that he was possessing the gun illegally or otherwise involved in criminal activity, they did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. The stop, therefore, violated appellant’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures.”
“The Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling in 2022 has shifted the dynamic for police in states where statutes presumed people carrying firearms were up to no good,” said CCRKBA’s Gottlieb. “That’s changed, and law enforcement, along with local prosecutors, need to get up to speed on this issue. Hicks could not be searched merely because he had a firearm, for which he was licensed. That’s a step too far, which the court recognized. Armed citizens do not give up their Fourth Amendment rights simply because they’re carrying a firearm, in Maryland or anywhere else.”
Judge Graeff noted in her opinion how the legal landscape has changed significantly since the 2022 Bruen ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“In sum,” the judge observed, “Bruen substantially changed the legal landscape in holding that a person has a protected right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. Although the Maryland appellate courts have, for decades, upheld police stops based on reasonable suspicion that a person is in possession of a gun, after Bruen, carrying a handgun publicly for self-defense is presumptively lawful, and therefore, mere possession of a concealed firearm, by itself, is not indicative of criminal activity. The mere possibility that a person with a gun might not have a valid license or otherwise may be restricted from possessing a gun is not enough to establish reasonable suspicion for a seizure.”
