Appellate Court of Maryland Reverses Conviction Following Unlawful Stop and Search

 Posted on September 24, 2026 in Appeals - State & Federal

In June 2026, the Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of our client in a recent criminal matter. The decision represents an important development in Maryland search-and-seizure law, clarifying the intersection between the Second Amendment right to carry a handgun and the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Creston Smith of Silverman Thompson represented our client in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and challenged the legality of the police search. His work on the motion to suppress set the stage for the appeal that followed.

The case began in July 2023, when a Baltimore City Police detective observed the outline of a handgun through our client’s shirt. Silverman Thompson's client repeatedly informed the officers at the scene that he was legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon and offered to provide his license as proof. Despite this, the detective proceeded to conduct a Terry stop and frisk, ultimately reaching into our client's bag and pockets. The search resulted in the discovery of additional evidence that was later used against him.

A Terry stop and frisk permits police to briefly detain a person when they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. If officers also reasonably suspect that the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a limited pat-down for weapons. In our client’s case, the legality of the initial detention—and therefore the evidence obtained during the subsequent search—turned on a fundamental question: Did the mere observation of a handgun provide police with reasonable suspicion to believe that our client was committing a crime?

Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Maryland courts operated under a longstanding framework in which carrying a handgun in public was generally presumed to be unlawful absent a statutory exception. Under that framework, police observation of a handgun could provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop because officers could reasonably suspect that the person was unlawfully carrying it.

Bruen changed that constitutional landscape. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding individuals to carry handguns in public for self-defense and that the government may not require a person to demonstrate a special need before exercising that right. Against that backdrop, the defense argued that the mere observation of a handgun could no longer, by itself, provide reasonable suspicion that the person carrying it was committing a crime. If lawful public carry is constitutionally protected, police cannot simply presume that a person carrying a handgun is doing so unlawfully.

The Appellate Court of Maryland agreed. The court held that the detectives lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Silverman Thompson's client because their decision to detain him was based solely on observing the outline of a handgun, without individualized facts suggesting that he possessed the firearm unlawfully or was otherwise engaged in criminal activity.

The ruling ultimately resulted in the reversal of his conviction. The decision, however, does not mean that lawful gun carriers are immune from police investigation. Nor does it prevent police from conducting a Terry stop when they observe additional circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion that a person is unlawfully carrying a firearm or is otherwise involved in criminal activity.

That distinction is particularly important under Maryland’s current concealed-carry laws. Effective October 1, 2023—after the events at issue in this case—Maryland law requires a handgun carried pursuant to a permit to be carried in a concealed manner. A visible imprint or exposure of a firearm may therefore present a different legal question under current law, particularly when the exposure is more than momentary or inadvertent.

This decision also makes clear that courts will continue to consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding a police encounter. Officers may point to additional facts or behavior when attempting to establish reasonable suspicion. Factors such as conduct suggesting unlawful possession, involvement in criminal activity, or other circumstances indicating that a person may pose a danger can change the constitutional analysis.

For Maryland residents who lawfully carry firearms, this case illustrates an important Fourth Amendment principle: exercising a constitutional right, standing alone, does not create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Police may investigate when they have individualized grounds to suspect unlawful conduct, but the Fourth Amendment does not permit a person’s lawful exercise of a constitutional right to become the sole justification for a warrantless detention and frisk.

Contact Creston Smith

Creston Smith is a partner at Silverman Thompson with over 30 years of criminal defense experience. He has tried hundreds of jury trials and has recently been named to the Maryland Daily Record Criminal Power List among many top recognitions for Baltimore criminal defense attorneys.

Mr. Smith can be reached at csmith@silvermanthompson.com or at 410-385-9100.