In re: D.D.

In re: D.D., No. 27, September Term, 2021. Opinion by Biran, J. 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. While frisking D.D. for weapons, one of the officers discovered a loaded gun in D.D.’s waistband. After being charged with firearms offenses, D.D. moved to suppress the gun.

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. 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. 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. This distinction makes sense, given the differing level of intrusion associated with an arrest compared to an investigative detention.

Thus, the Court held that the initial detention of D.D., based solely on the odor of marijuana, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. 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. had reasonable suspicion that D.D. was armed and dangerous, based on the totality of the circumstances. The factors supporting reasonable suspicion included the evasive behavior and body language of D.D. 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. Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Case No. JA-19-0409 Argued: January 6, 2022 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 27 September Term, 2021 IN RE: D.D. *Getty, C.J. *McDonald Watts Hotten Booth Biran Raker, Irma S.

(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by Biran, J. Watts, J., concurs. Hotten and Raker, JJ., dissent. Filed: June 21, 2022 *Getty, C.J., and McDonald, J., now Senior Judges, participated in the hearing and conference of this Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials case while active members of this Court; after being Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this recalled pursuant to Maryland Constitution, Article document is authentic.

IV, Section 3A, they also participated in the decision 2023-01-17 10:48-05:00 and adoption of this opinion. Gregory Hilton, Clerk In 2014, the Maryland General Assembly decriminalized possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana. However, the Legislature did not legalize marijuana possession. Rather, possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana currently is a civil offense punishable by fines and other remedies, and possession of more than 10 grams of marijuana remains a criminal offense.

In the aftermath of this partial decriminalization, this Court has issued several opinions concerning warrantless searches and seizures based on the odor of marijuana. The most recent of these cases, Lewis v. State, 470 Md. 1 (2020), involved a search incident to an arrest, where the probable cause for the arrest was based solely on the fact that officers smelled marijuana on the defendant. We held that the odor of marijuana on a person, without more, does not provide probable cause to believe that the person is in possession of a criminal amount of the drug. Therefore, the officers lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant, and the evidence found in the search incident to that arrest had to be suppressed.

In this case, we consider whether to extend the holding in Lewis to an investigatory detention, which requires a showing of reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot – a standard that is significantly less stringent than probable cause. That is, we must decide whether the odor of marijuana, by itself, provides reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory detention. On November 15, 2019, two police officers stopped a group of five young men as the group was getting ready to leave an apartment building in Capitol Heights, Maryland. D.D., the Respondent/Cross-Petitioner before us, was one of the five members of the group.

He was 15 years old at the time. The officers had been called to the building based on a complaint involving the odor of marijuana. The officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the group of young men and directed them to sit down, thus seizing them for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The young men would not tell the officers where they lived, and D.D., in particular, exhibited behavior that one of the officers believed was “evasive,” suggesting to the officer that D.D. might be armed.

The officers subsequently began patting down the members of the group for weapons. One of the officers found a suspected handgun (possibly a BB gun) in the waistband of one of D.D.’s companions. The other officer then frisked D.D. and found a loaded gun in D.D.’s waistband. A delinquency petition subsequently was filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County charging D.D. with firearms offenses.

D.D. moved to suppress the gun, arguing that his initial detention and subsequent frisk both violated the Fourth Amendment. The circuit court, sitting as the juvenile court, denied D.D.’s suppression motion and found him involved as to the charged offenses. D.D. appealed the juvenile court’s denial of his suppression motion. The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding that the odor of marijuana, without more, does not provide reasonable suspicion of possession of a criminal amount of marijuana.

Thus, the intermediate appellate court held that the investigatory detention of D.D., which was based solely on the odor of marijuana, violated the Fourth Amendment. Having ruled that the gun should have been suppressed due to the invalid detention, the Court of Special Appeals did not decide whether the frisk also was impermissible. We hold that the odor of marijuana provides reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to conduct a brief investigatory detention. Thus, the officers’ initial stop 2 of D.D. did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

We also conclude that the discovery of a weapon on one of D.D.’s companions, combined with the group’s evasive behavior and other circumstances, provided the officers with reasonable suspicion that D.D. was armed and dangerous. Thus, the pat-down that led to the discovery of the gun on D.D. also was reasonable. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and hold that the juvenile court properly denied D.D.’s suppression motion. I Background A. The Investigatory Detention and Pat-Down of D.D. On November 15, 2019, shortly after 7:30 p.m., Sergeant Jeff Walden and Officer Alexandra Moser of the Prince George’s County Police Department (the “Department”) responded to a call for service to investigate a group of males in an apartment building located at 6626 Ronald Road in Capitol Heights, Maryland.

The call was based on a complaint of “loud music and the smell of marijuana” coming from the basement of the building. After opening the front door of the apartment building, the officers saw a group of five young men walking up the stairs from the basement. The officers “smelled a strong odor of marijuana” coming from the group. Sergeant Walden – a 21-year veteran of the Department – stopped the group and directed them to “have a seat” on the stairs.

The young men were wearing baggy clothes, and D.D. was wearing a “big puffy jacket.” There were two sets of stairs leading away from the landing where the officers were located when they entered the building and stopped the group. The stairs to the left of the officers led up to 3 the next level of the building. The stairs to the right led down to the basement.1 After Sergeant Walden told the young men to sit down, four of the members of the group sat down on the ascending staircase. The young man later identified as D.D. 2 was the only member of the group who sat down on the descending staircase.

According to Sergeant Walden, he and Officer Moser began their discussion with the young men by asking, “[W]ho lives here?” The officers received no response. None of the members of the group “could provide any identification of where they lived.” When Sergeant Walden specifically asked D.D. where he lived, D.D. “shrugged his shoulders and didn’t say anything.” When Officer Moser asked D.D. the same question, D.D. replied “my dick.” The other members of the group were “snickering, laughing, very carefree, [and] not cooperative.” Sergeant Walden noticed that D.D. kept turning away from him and “seemed to be evasive,” which, based on Sergeant Walden’s “training and knowledge,” is “a sign that you could be carrying a weapon.” Sergeant Walden also was concerned because he could not “really see [D.D.’s] hands.” According to Sergeant Walden, D.D. “would speak to me, but I can’t see his whole body language, I can’t see what he’s doing.” Because of the “odor of marijuana,” the group’s “evasive body language,” and the fact that there were “five of them in baggy clothes” in a place “where they could run out the door,” Sergeant Walden was concerned that one of the group members might be in possession of a weapon and “wanted to feel safe that there was nobody that was armed at 1 Although it is not explicit in the record, we infer that it was this set of stairs that the young men were ascending as the officers entered the building. 2 In this opinion, we refer to D.D. and other juveniles by their initials. 4 the time.” The officers told the group members that they would each be frisked. At that point, the officers were investigating the young men for the crimes of trespassing and possession of controlled dangerous substances. Officer Moser first conducted a pat-down of one of D.D.’s companions.

As she did so, Officer Moser felt what she believed to be a handgun inside the waistband of the subject’s pants. Officer Moser then placed the young man in handcuffs. At that point, Sergeant Walden moved to assist Officer Moser and stood in front of the door because “through [his] training and knowledge and understanding” he “knew as soon as she put him in handcuffs that she had recovered a weapon.” After she placed the young man in handcuffs, Officer Moser conducted a more thorough pat-down and removed the suspected handgun from the subject’s waistband. After securing the group member with the suspected handgun and placing him to the side, Sergeant Walden turned his attention to D.D. Sergeant Walden “had [D.D.] stand up, place his hands on top of his head and … step against the wall.” Sergeant Walden then “started a pat-down … and as soon as [he] went to the waistband, which is the first place that [he] went, [he] could feel the butt of a handgun in his waistband.” Sergeant Walden then placed D.D. in handcuffs “so he wouldn’t be able to reach for it or fight or anything.” From D.D.’s waistband, Sergeant Walden retrieved a loaded nine millimeter handgun.

When asked to explain “how officers are trained to respond when they’re outnumbered,” Sergeant Walden responded: At first you’re in a terrible disadvantage. We were taught in the academy, it’s basic, you’d want to also go with back-up and you shouldn’t handle any call by yourself. 5 But there are times where you’re put in that position to where there are several people coming at you, so you have to get the advantage. And one of the first concerns is a weapon that they could use against you. And my first concern was one of them having a weapon.

And there was five of them and they were right by a door where they could run out the door, plus the odor … of marijuana, that there was illegal drug activity there, the fact that nobody could provide any identification that they live inside that building. So the first thing we want to do is secure them and make sure that they don’t have any weapons on them. Once we found the weapon on them, then they were secured and handcuffed. B. The Juvenile Court’s Ruling On November 18, 2019, a delinquency petition was filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County charging D.D. with possession of a regulated firearm by a person under the age of 21 and two other firearms-related offenses.

On December 13, 2019, D.D., through counsel, filed a motion to suppress the handgun recovered from his waistband. The circuit court, sitting as the juvenile court, held a hearing on D.D.’s motion on December 17, 2019. The State called one witness, Sergeant Walden, who testified to the facts set forth above. D.D. called one witness, D.A., another juvenile who was in the group of five.

D.A. testified that, after he and the others encountered the officers as they walked up the stairs from the basement, the officers immediately told them to sit down. According to D.A., the “first thing they asked was does anybody have dope, where’s the dope.” The group responded that they had no drugs. The male officer then asked them if there was anything they wanted to tell him about. The group said that there was not, but D.A. told the officer 6 that he had a “funnel” on him, which was “not a drug.”3 After that, according to D.A., the officers “were like okay, we’re going to search everybody.” D.A. acknowledged that he and the others had been smoking marijuana in the basement prior to their encounter with the officers.

D.A. also stated that none of the five young men lived in the building and confirmed that, after the female officer frisked one of the other young men, “J.”, she removed a weapon from J.’s waistband. According to D.A., after the female officer felt the weapon, J. “called out” that he had a BB gun. D.A. confirmed that the female officer discovered the alleged BB gun on J. before the male officer began frisking D.D. After hearing argument from counsel for D.D. and the State, the juvenile court denied D.D.’s suppression motion: The Court finds there’s … reasonable articulable suspicion that the Respondent was engaged in criminal activity, a lot of facts as they were outlined in the testimony, it was … 7:00 in November…. It was … cold.

That there was a strong odor of marijuana. The Court credits the testimony of the officer regarding the response from some of the males in response to his questions, that the young man was evasive. The Court also credits the officer’s testimony … that he asked where he lived and the, they responded, replied, you know, at my dick. So the Court finds there’s a reasonable articulable suspicion for criminal activity.

The Court is going to deny the motion to suppress. (Paragraph breaks omitted.) On January 7, 2020, the juvenile court found that D.D. was involved as to all counts charged in the delinquency petition. After holding a disposition hearing on February 7, 3 D.A. did not provide any further explanation about what a “funnel” is. In its brief, the State tells us that “it appears [D.A.] was referring to a tobacco leaf product used for rolling cigarettes.” 7 2020, the juvenile court ordered D.D. placed on probation/protective supervision with probation to be terminated on November 30, 2020.

C. Appeal The Court of Special Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s denial of D.D.’s suppression motion. In re D.D., 250 Md. App. 284 (2021). Although the Court of Special Appeals acknowledged that this Court’s opinion in Lewis “addressed probable cause, a higher standard than reasonable suspicion,” it observed that reasonable suspicion “still is tied to suspicion of criminal conduct.” Id. at 300-01 . The intermediate appellate court concluded that “because the ‘odor of marijuana alone does not indicate the quantity, if any, of marijuana in someone’s possession,’ Lewis, 470 Md. at 27 , it cannot, by itself, provide reasonable suspicion that the person is in possession of a criminal amount of marijuana or otherwise involved in criminal activity.” Id. at 301.

Because the officers detained D.D. and his companions based solely on the odor of marijuana, the Court of Special Appeals held that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. Id. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the seizure was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the juvenile court erred in denying D.D.’s suppression motion. Id.

Having concluded that suppression of the gun was required due to the unconstitutionality of the initial detention, the Court of Special Appeals did not decide whether the subsequent frisk of D.D. independently violated the Fourth Amendment. The State filed a petition for certiorari in this Court, seeking review of the following question: “Does the scent of marijuana provide reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop to determine if someone possesses a criminal amount of marijuana or 8 could be cited for civil violations of marijuana laws?” D.D. subsequently filed a conditional cross-petition presenting the question: “Assuming, arguendo, that the stop was constitutional, was the frisk unlawful because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that D.D. was armed and dangerous?” We granted both petitions. In re D.D., 475 Md. 701 (2021). II Standard of Review In reviewing a trial court’s ruling concerning the admissibility of evidence allegedly seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we accept the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.

Grant v. State, 449 Md. 1, 31 (2016). We independently appraise the ultimate question of constitutionality by applying the relevant law to the facts de novo. See id. Where “there is any competent evidence to support the factual findings below, those findings cannot be held to be clearly erroneous.” Givens v. State, 459 Md. 694, 705 (2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We review “the trial court’s findings of fact, the evidence, and the inferences that may be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party who prevails on the issue that the defendant raises in the motion to suppress.” Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94, 108 (2017) (citation omitted). 9 III Discussion The Fourth Amendment provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const. amend.

IV

Under the Fourth Amendment, “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions, a warrantless search or seizure that infringes upon the protected interests of an individual is presumptively unreasonable.” Grant, 449 Md. at 16-17 (footnote omitted). “The default rule requires that a seizure of a person by a law enforcement officer must be supported by probable cause, and, absent a showing of probable cause, the seizure violates the Fourth Amendment.” Crosby v. State, 408 Md. 490, 505 (2009) (citation omitted). However, “a law enforcement officer may conduct a brief investigative ‘stop’ of an individual if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” Id. at 505-06 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 17 (1968)). In addition, a police officer may conduct “a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where [the officer] has reason to believe that [the officer] is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he [or she] has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.” In re David S., 367 Md. 523, 533 (2002) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 ). 10 A. Reasonable Suspicion and the Odor of Marijuana D.D. argues that this Court’s opinion in Lewis v. State is dispositive of the first issue presented by this case. D.D.’s position is that “[b]ecause the odor of marijuana alone is not indicative of criminal activity and an officer must have evidence of a crime in order to conduct an investigatory stop, it necessarily follows that the odor of marijuana alone does not provide reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop.” The State argues that the Court of Special Appeals erred when it held that the odor of marijuana “cannot, by itself, provide reasonable suspicion that the person is in possession of a criminal amount of marijuana or otherwise involved in criminal activity.” D.D., 250 Md. App. at 301 .

The State emphasizes that the standard for reasonable suspicion is less demanding than that for probable cause. Thus, according to the State, the Court of Special Appeals’ decision in this case improperly “elevates the standard for reasonable suspicion, requiring police at the nascent stage of an investigation to have certainty that criminal activity is afoot before being able to conduct an investigatory stop meant to confirm or dispel that suspicion.” We agree with the State. 1. The Odor of Marijuana and Probable Cause Prior to the General Assembly’s partial decriminalization of marijuana possession in 2014, possession of any amount of marijuana generally was illegal.4 As a result, before 2014, the odor of marijuana gave law enforcement officers probable cause to search a vehicle, see, e.g., Wilson v. State, 174 Md. App. 434, 441-42 (2007), and the odor of 4 Maryland adopted a medical marijuana program in 2013. See H.B. 1101, 2013 Leg., 433rd Sess.

(Md. 2013). 11 marijuana particularized to a person provided probable cause for an arrest. See McGurk v. State, 201 Md. App. 23, 52 (2011) (citation omitted). Currently, the use or possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana is a “civil offense” punishable by a fine not exceeding $100 for a first offense, increasing to a fine of $250 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or subsequent offense. Md. Code Ann., Crim.

Law (CR) § 5-601(c)(2)(ii) (2002, 2021 Repl. Vol.). Smoking marijuana in a public place is a civil offense punishable by a fine not exceeding $500. Id. § 5-601(c)(4).

The “use or possession” of 10 grams or more of marijuana remains a criminal offense, specifically a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both. Id. § 5-601(c)(2).5 The partial decriminalization of marijuana changed the legal landscape significantly, leading to a series of decisions by the Court of Special Appeals and this Court that considered whether and how the odor of marijuana continues to provide probable cause to conduct warrantless searches and seizures in Maryland. The first of these cases was Bowling v. State, 227 Md. App. 460 (2016). Bowling involved a traffic stop that subsequently resulted in a K-9 alert indicating that the vehicle contained a controlled dangerous substance.

Id. at 462-65 . As such, the case dealt with the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, also known as the “Carroll doctrine,” which allows an officer to “search an automobile, without a warrant, if he or she has 5 The General Assembly has provided exceptions to this enforcement regime for those who have obtained marijuana “directly or by prescription or order from an authorized provider acting in the course of professional practice.” CR § 5-601(a)(1). 12 probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime or contraband goods.” Id. at 468 (citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925); Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300 (1999)). The Court of Special Appeals noted that “Maryland appellate courts consistently have held that the detection of the odor of marijuana by a trained drug dog establishes probable cause to conduct a warrantless Carroll doctrine search of a vehicle,” before going on to consider “whether the recent Maryland law, which decriminalized the possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana and made it a civil offense, changes this analysis.” Id. at 469 (citations omitted). The Court of Special Appeals held that the partial decriminalization did “not change the established precedent that a drug dog’s alert to the odor of marijuana, without more, provides the police with probable cause to authorize a search of a vehicle pursuant to the Carroll doctrine.” Id. at 476.

Important to the intermediate appellate court’s holding was the fact that “although the Maryland General Assembly made possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana a civil, as opposed to a criminal, offense, it is still illegal to possess any quantity of marijuana, and marijuana retains its status as contraband.” Id. Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94 (2017), also concerned the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, but involved the smell of marijuana by an officer, not a drug dog. In Robinson, this Court analyzed the “Fourth Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, Bowling, and authority from other jurisdictions that have addressed the decriminalization – or, in one instance, the legalization – of marijuana,” and held that “a law enforcement officer has probable cause to search a vehicle where the law enforcement officer detects an odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle.” Id. at 125 . Similar to 13 Bowling, our holding in Robinson was based largely on the idea that “[d]ecriminalization is not the same as legalization” and that “[d]espite the decriminalization of possession of less than ten grams of marijuana, possession of marijuana in any amount remains illegal in Maryland.” Id.

(emphasis in original). We further explained: [A]t oral argument and in its brief, the State argued that, separate from the odor of marijuana providing probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband, the odor of marijuana provides probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a crime. Put simply, we agree. Despite the decriminalization of possession of less than ten grams of marijuana, the odor of marijuana remains evidence of a crime.

The odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle may be just as indicative of crimes such as the possession of more than ten grams of marijuana, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, or the operation of a vehicle under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance, as it is of possession of less than ten grams of marijuana…. [I]t is unreasonable to expect law enforcement officers to determine, based on odor alone, the difference between 9.99 grams or less of marijuana and 10 grams of marijuana. In short, possession of ten grams or more of marijuana, crimes involving the distribution of marijuana, and driving under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance have not been decriminalized in Maryland, and, thus, the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle provides probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, and a law enforcement officer may search the vehicle under such circumstances. Id. at 133-34 . Just a few months later, in Norman v. State, 452 Md. 373 (2017), we considered whether the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle with multiple passengers alone could serve as “reasonable articulable suspicion that the vehicle’s occupants are armed and dangerous and subject to frisk.” Id. at 412 .

We answered that question in the negative, reasoning that for a law enforcement officer to frisk, i.e., pat down, an individual, there must be reasonable articulable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous, even where a law enforcement officer detects the odor of 14 marijuana emanating from a vehicle. We hold that, where an odor of marijuana emanates from a vehicle with multiple occupants, a law enforcement officer may frisk an occupant of the vehicle if an additional circumstance or circumstances give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion that the occupant is armed and dangerous. Stated otherwise, for a law enforcement officer to have reasonable articulable suspicion to frisk one of multiple occupants of a vehicle from which an odor of marijuana is emanating, the totality of circumstances must indicate that the occupant in question is armed and dangerous. Id. at 411-12 .

Thus, while the smell of marijuana can justify a quick pat-down of a vehicle’s occupants if combined with some other pertinent circumstance(s), the odor, in and of itself, is insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion that a specific individual within the vehicle is armed and dangerous. Id. at 412 . The Court stated that Robinson was not “determinative of the issue at hand,” id. at 409 , as “[n]o frisks or searches of persons were at issue in Robinson, and nowhere in Robinson did this Court imply, one way or the other, whether a frisk of a person would be permissible based on an odor of marijuana alone emanating from a vehicle.” Id. at 411 . Next, in Pacheco v. State, 465 Md. 311 (2019), we considered whether the smell of marijuana in a car, combined with the observation of a “fresh burnt” joint that could not possibly have contained more than 10 grams of marijuana, provided probable cause sufficient both to search the car and to arrest, and thereby search, the occupant of the car.

Although we indicated that “the police lawfully searched Mr. Pacheco’s car for contraband or evidence of the three crimes identified in Robinson,” we observed that it “does not follow” from the existence of probable cause to search the car that the police “likewise had the right to search [Pacheco’s] person.” Id. at 330 . We explained that “[t]he same facts and circumstances that justify a search of an automobile do not necessarily justify an arrest and 15 search incident thereto. This is based on the heightened expectation of privacy one enjoys in his or her person as compared to the diminished expectation of privacy one has in an automobile. The arrest and search of Mr. Pacheco was unreasonable because nothing in the record suggests that possession of a joint and the odor of burnt marijuana gave the police probable cause to believe he was in possession of a criminal amount of that substance.” Id. at 333-34 .

Although we noted that, “[i]n a different case, additional facts or testimony beyond what we have here may well have compelled a different result,” we concluded that the State had not met its burden to prove that the warrantless arrest and search of the occupant was reasonable. Id. at 333 . Finally, in Lewis v. State, we held that the odor of marijuana on a person, without more, does not provide probable cause to arrest the person (and to conduct a search of the person incident to the arrest). In Lewis, the State based its argument on the fact that, unlike Pacheco, where the police saw a singular marijuana joint in the car that was suggestive of a non-criminal offense, the police in Lewis only had the odor of marijuana to go on in deciding whether to arrest the suspect: [W]hile the scent of marijuana left unexplained provides probable cause to believe that a criminal amount may be present, see Robinson, that scent plus the sighting of a non-criminal amount should diminish suspicion.

And without some other factual basis to conclude that, where there is some marijuana, there may be more, the inference of criminal possession in Pacheco simply receded into the constitutionally unreasonable. Pacheco is, therefore, best understood as a case-specific application of the totality-of-the-evidence test, and the facts here are different than in Pacheco. This case does not feature a fact, akin to the less-than-10-gram-cigarette, that explained the source of the marijuana emanating from Lewis’s person in a 16 way that should have diminished Officer Burch’s probable cause arising from the scent alone. Brief of Respondent, Lewis v. State, 2019 WL 8014537 , at ⁴⁷-⁴⁸ (Dec. 10, 2019).

We rejected the State’s attempt to distinguish Pacheco, and held that the search of Lewis incident to his arrest, based solely on the odor of marijuana emanating from his person, was unreasonable. Lewis, 470 Md. at 27 . “Under Pacheco, that information fell short of supplying the requisite probable cause to conduct that search.” Id. (citing Pacheco, 465 Md. at 333-34 ). We further explained: Probable cause to conduct a lawful arrest requires that the arrestee committed a felony or was committing a felony or misdemeanor in a law enforcement officer’s presence.

Possession of less than ten grams of marijuana is a civil offense, not a felony or a misdemeanor, therefore law enforcement officers need probable cause to believe the arrestee is in possession of a criminal amount of marijuana to conduct a lawful arrest. The odor of marijuana alone does not indicate the quantity, if any, of marijuana in someone’s possession. Id. Thus, we held that for the arrest and search of a person “to be supported by probable cause, the police must possess information indicating possession of a criminal amount of marijuana.” Id.

Because there was no indication in the record suggesting that Lewis possessed a criminal amount of marijuana, we held that his arrest and search incident to arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. Id. 2. A Less Stringent Standard: Reasonable Suspicion Versus Probable Cause as Applied to the Odor of Marijuana following Decriminalization Lewis does not necessarily control this case because the initial seizure at issue here (unlike in Lewis) is not an arrest requiring probable cause, but rather is an investigatory detention requiring reasonable suspicion. While investigatory detentions are seizures within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, “the limited nature of a brief investigative 17 stop does not demand a standard as stringent as probable cause.” Crosby, 408 Md. at 506 (citation omitted).

Rather, to conduct a brief investigatory detention, an officer must have only reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. Id. at 505-06 . “Reasonable suspicion exists somewhere between unparticularized suspicions and probable cause.” Sizer v. State, 456 Md. 350, 364 (2017) (citation omitted); see also Stokes v. State, 362 Md. 407, 415 (2001) (“[M]ere hunches are insufficient to justify an investigatory stop; for such an intrusion, an officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “While there is no litmus test to define the reasonable suspicion standard,” law enforcement officers must have “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 , 60 (2014) (reasonable suspicion means “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of breaking the law”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have explained that “the level of suspicion necessary to constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence and obviously less demanding than that for probable cause.” Graham v. State, 325 Md. 398, 408 (1992) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The probable cause standard does not require an officer “to rule out a suspect’s innocent explanation for suspicious facts.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 588 (2018). The same is true, of course, for the reasonable suspicion standard. See, e.g., United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277 (2002). But, as discussed above, the two 18 standards are not equivalent.

Reasonable suspicion is a less stringent standard than probable cause. That is true “not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause.” Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990). Put simply, a particular circumstance or set of circumstances may satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard but fall short of probable cause. That is precisely the case with respect to the odor of marijuana.

Contrary to D.D.’s argument, decriminalization has not rendered the odor of marijuana free of all criminal suspicion. Rather, “the odor of marijuana remains evidence of a crime,” Robinson, 451 Md. at 133 , because the use or possession of 10 grams or more of marijuana remains a criminal offense in Maryland. In other words, partial decriminalization has reduced the level of certainty associated with the odor of marijuana on a person from probable cause that the person has committed a crime to reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime or is in the process of committing a crime.6 6 During the 2022 Legislative Session, the General Assembly passed House Bills 1 and 837. House Bill 1 proposes an amendment to the Maryland Constitution legalizing the use and possession of cannabis for individuals in Maryland who are at least 21 years old.

The proposed amendment will be on the ballot as part of the 2022 general election. If Maryland voters ratify the constitutional amendment, the voting results will be sent to the Governor and, upon his proclamation, the amendment will take immediate effect. However, the amendment is contingent on the requirement that the General Assembly pass legislation regarding the use, distribution, possession, regulation, and taxation of cannabis. Dep’t Legis.

Servs., Fiscal and Policy Note, House Bill 837, at 2 (2022 Session), available at https://perma.cc/3R3S-9XMH. House Bill 837, among other things, addresses the use of 19 It follows that a brief investigatory detention based solely on the odor of marijuana is reasonable, whereas an arrest (and a search incident to such arrest) is unreasonable if based solely on the odor of marijuana. The different outcomes make sense, given the differing levels of intrusiveness of the two Fourth Amendment events. An arrest is the “most intrusive encounter” that a police officer has with a citizen.

Swift v. State, 393 Md. 139, 150 (2006); see also State v. Wells, 859 N.W.2d 316 , 326 (Neb. 2015) (observing that an arrest “involves a highly intrusive or lengthy search or detention”). “[G]enerally, a display of force by a police officer, such as putting a person in handcuffs, is considered an arrest.” Longshore v. State, 399 Md. 486, 502 (2007). An investigatory detention to determine whether criminal activity is afoot “is less intrusive than a formal custodial arrest[.]” Swift, 393 Md. at 150 . It “is limited in duration and purpose and can only last as long as it takes a police officer to confirm or to dispel his suspicions.” Id. cannabis. Under House Bill 837, persons who are 21 years old or older would be able legally to possess up to 1.5 ounces of usable cannabis (defined in the legislation as the “personal use amount”).

The use or possession of more than 1.5 ounces but not more than 2.5 ounces of usable cannabis (defined as the “civil use amount”) would be a civil offense punishable by a fine and other remedies. The use or possession of more than 2.5 ounces of usable cannabis (like 10 or more grams under current law) would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months of imprisonment, a fine of $1,000, or both. If the constitutional amendment is ratified, additional legislation will be needed to address the remaining outstanding issues. See Madeleine O’Neill, Still on Different Paths: Md. House, Senate disconnected on path to legal cannabis in advance of referendum, The Daily Record at 1 (June 6, 2022), available at https://perma.cc/F3VJ-CYVK.

We express no opinion concerning the potential impact of the adoption of the proposed constitutional amendment and the provisions of House Bill 837 on this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. 20 As to an investigatory detention based on the odor of marijuana, if the officer does not quickly obtain additional information that provides probable cause to believe that the person has committed a violation of CR § 5-601(c)(2) or another criminal offense, the officer must allow the person to go on their way. The public interest in investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses, balanced against an individual’s freedom of movement and reasonable expectation of privacy in their person, leads us to conclude that the odor of marijuana by itself justifies a brief investigatory detention, but (as we held in Lewis) not an arrest. See United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685 (1985) (observing that “the brevity of the invasion of the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests is an important factor in determining whether the seizure is so minimally intrusive as to be justifiable on reasonable suspicion”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, if a police officer stops a person based on the smell of marijuana, the officer must “diligently pursue[] a means of investigation that [is] likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly[.]” Id. at 686 (citations omitted).

There is no particular amount of time that is per se reasonable or unreasonable. Whether an investigative detention that begins as reasonable based on the odor of marijuana becomes unreasonable because of its length will depend on the particular circumstances of each case. However, we emphasize that such detentions must be brief, especially in light of the reality that many individuals who choose to possess marijuana do so under the criminal threshold of 10 grams. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s suppression ruling because it believed Lewis required that outcome.

Although the intermediate appellate court acknowledged that “Lewis addressed probable cause, a higher standard than reasonable 21 suspicion,” D.D., 250 Md. App. at 300 , it reasoned that Lewis’s holding rendered D.D.’s investigatory detention unconstitutional “because an officer cannot tell by the smell of marijuana alone that a person is involved in criminal activity.” Id. at 301 . However, Lewis must be read in conjunction with the cases that came before it, including Robinson. In Robinson, we acknowledged that the odor of marijuana does not reveal the quantity of marijuana held by a given individual. Yet, we recognized that such uncertainty does not render the odor of marijuana irrelevant to a criminal investigation.

To the contrary, we stated that, “[d]espite the decriminalization of possession of less than ten grams of marijuana, the odor of marijuana remains evidence of a crime.” Robinson, 451 Md. at 133 . Notably, in Pacheco and Lewis, we did not call this language in Robinson into question. Indeed, in Pacheco, we reaffirmed the holding of Robinson, explaining that “the police lawfully searched Mr. Pacheco’s car for contraband or evidence of the three crimes identified in Robinson[.]” Pacheco, 465 Md. at 330 (emphasis added). However, we drew a distinction between the showing necessary to establish probable cause to justify an arrest and the showing necessary to demonstrate probable cause to search an automobile, given the different expectations of privacy that apply in those settings.

See id. at 333 . We further elaborated on this distinction in Lewis, citing the “evidence of a crime” language from Robinson and stating that “[a]rresting and searching a person, without a warrant and based exclusively on the odor of marijuana on that person’s body or breath, is unreasonable and does violence to the fundamental privacy expectation in one’s body; the same concerns do not attend the search of a vehicle.” Lewis, 470 Md. at 26 . 22 D.D. contends that “cases discuss[ing] how the odor of marijuana provides probable cause to search a vehicle ... for reasons this Court explained in Lewis, are not instructive here.” We disagree. In order to accept this proposition, we would need to disclaim Robinson’s key language quoted above, which we are not prepared to do. There can be no real dispute that the odor of marijuana still provides evidence of a crime – as we explained in Robinson – even if it may not rise to the level of probable cause in every situation.

D.D. correctly observes that there are many wholly innocent reasons why someone might smell of marijuana. However, that does not render the odor of marijuana free of reasonable suspicion. As Terry itself demonstrates, wholly innocent conduct may provide reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring or is about to occur.7 In sum, although the quantum of evidence that the odor of marijuana provides is insufficient to justify an arrest based on the probable cause standard, it meets the reasonable suspicion standard necessary to justify a brief investigatory detention. Put another way, under Lewis, 7 In Terry, a police officer saw what he reasonably believed to be three men planning a daytime store robbery.

However, each individual action that the officer observed was wholly innocent. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 5-7 . Two of the men walked up and down a street in downtown Cleveland separately several times, repeatedly looking into the same store window. Id. at 6 .

They also spoke with each other and then with the third man. The third man then walked away from the two others. Id. The first two men then resumed their “measured pacing, peering and conferring.” Id.

Later, the two men met up with the third man down the street and the group again conversed. Id. Based on the officer’s observations of this facially innocent conduct, which indicated to the officer that the men were “casing a job, a stick-up,” the officer seized Terry and frisked him. Id. at 6-7 .

The Supreme Court upheld the frisk, concluding that the officer’s suspicion that Terry might be armed and dangerous, based on this wholly innocent conduct, was reasonable. See id. at 27-28 . The suspects’ actions were consistent with planning a daytime robbery, and nothing the officer observed lessened that suspicion. Id. at 28 . 23 the officers could not have arrested D.D. or any of the members of the group based solely on the odor of marijuana, but that does not mean the officers’ suspicion that one or more of the group might possess at least 10 grams of the drug – based on odor alone – was unreasonable.8 The distinction in the standards applied in these situations exists, in large part, because a brief investigatory stop does not raise “the same concerns” as “[a]rresting and searching a person, without a warrant.” Lewis, 470 Md at 26.

Being stopped for a short amount of time so that an officer can ask a few questions does not do the same “violence to the fundamental privacy expectation in one’s body” that being placed in handcuffs and physically searched does. Id. Indeed, it would be peculiar if the odor of marijuana was sufficient to meet the higher standard of probable cause needed to search a vehicle, but insufficient to meet the lower standard of reasonable suspicion needed to briefly stop a person on the street. This Court did not contemplate such an incongruous result in deciding Robinson, Pacheco, and Lewis.

Extending Lewis’s holding to Terry stops also would be problematic because of its implications for investigating crimes besides possession of marijuana. In its principal brief, the State provides several examples: For instance, … it would be impossible for an officer who sees the butt of a handgun protruding from a person’s waistband to conduct an investigatory stop. Just as the odor of marijuana alone cannot tell an officer 8 D.D. did not argue in the juvenile court that the stop was improper because the officers could not particularize the odor of marijuana to him. He made that argument in the Court of Special Appeals, but the Court held that the argument was not preserved and declined to consider it.

See D.D., 250 Md. App. at 298 . D.D. has not renewed that argument before us, and therefore we also do not consider it. 24 whether a person possesses a criminal amount of the drug, an officer’s visual inspection of a handgun cannot definitively say whether the person may legally possess the firearm. See Crim. Law § 4-101(b) (describing individuals who may lawfully carry a weapon).

If no definitive criminal activity is afoot, no investigatory stop would be permitted. The same logic undermines the rationale for any number of stops. Consider, for example, a traffic stop for excessive window tinting, which the intermediate appellate court considered in Baez v. State, 238 Md. App. 587 (2018). There, the court concluded that an officer had reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop based on the window tint of a vehicle potentially being in violation of the law.

Id. at 597 . Because an officer’s visual inspection of a tinted widow cannot definitively tell whether the tint exceeds the legal limit, no investigatory stop would be permitted, and enforcement of that law would necessarily be stymied. The same holds true for many similar traffic violations. Taken to extremes, this reasoning could apply to nearly any potential criminal behavior.

People die of natural causes every day. A person standing over a dead body, therefore, is probably more likely to have witnessed the person have a fatal heart attack as to have killed the person. Because police cannot immediately tell whether the witness has committed a criminal act or come to the aid of the seemingly stricken, an investigatory stop would be out of the question. Only after police determine that the death was a killing could they seek to hold the witness.

These examples, made possible by the reasoning below, turn the constitutional inquiry on its head, mistakenly asking whether “particular conduct is ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty,’” instead of probing the “the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 588 . D.D. attempts to distinguish his case from the State’s examples by asserting that “[t]he key facts in all of [the State’s] proposed hypotheticals – butts of handguns, window tints, and dead bodies on the ground – include concrete observations made by the officer that support further investigation. After Lewis, the odor of marijuana alone does not provide that same type of concrete information that allows an officer to reasonably infer that an individual is engaged in criminal activity.” 25 D.D.’s argument is unconvincing. An officer’s detection of the odor of marijuana is also a “concrete observation” that supports further investigation.

See Bailey v. State, 412 Md. 349, 379 (2010) (noting marijuana’s “readily identifiable, distinctive odor”); State v. Secrist, 589 N.W.2d 387, 391 (Wis. 1999) (referring to the “unmistakable odor of marijuana”). We agree with the State that accepting D.D.’s argument could significantly hamper the legitimate investigation of criminal activity in Maryland. As stated above, law enforcement officers do not need to rule out innocent explanations for suspicious conduct before conducting a Terry stop. Given the important governmental interest in detecting, preventing, and prosecuting crime, the Fourth Amendment allows a brief seizure, based on reasonable suspicion, to attempt to determine whether criminal activity is afoot.

An officer who lacks probable cause to arrest is not required “to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape.” Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 145 (1972) (citation omitted). When a police officer smells marijuana on someone, it is certainly the case that the person may possess less than 10 grams of marijuana or they may possess no marijuana at all. But it also is possible that the person is presently in possession of 10 or more grams of marijuana. Under D.D.’s reasoning, police officers would be powerless to conduct a brief investigatory detention to try to determine which category the person is in.

That is not what the Fourth Amendment requires. To the contrary, the odor of marijuana 26 permits an officer to briefly detain an individual to investigate whether that person has committed a criminal offense.9 Our conclusion differentiating between reasonable suspicion and probable cause with respect to the odor of marijuana is consistent with the rationales of cases from several other jurisdictions concerning the odor of marijuana in a post-decriminalization context. See, e.g., People v. Looby, 68 V.I. 683 , 697-98 (2018) (“[A]lthough a person in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana may now avoid criminal penalization, the presence or absence of criminal penalization does not disturb our constitutional frisk and seizure inquiry. This is because reasonable suspicion – the predicate for a valid stop and frisk – does not depend on whether the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is ‘guilty’; instead, reasonable suspicion is a matter of constitutional and evidentiary concern turning on whether an officer reasonably concludes that evidence of contraband or of a crime may be present…. [T]he scent of marijuana (which remains contraband subject to seizure in this Territory) alone may be sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion or even ‘probable cause’ to conduct further investigation into possible criminal acts or evidence of contraband.”); In re O.S., 112 N.E.3d 621, 634 (Ill.

App. Ct. 2018) (concluding “that case law holding that the odor of marijuana is indicative of criminal activity remains 9 The State also argues that, if an officer smells the odor of marijuana on a person, the officer is permitted to briefly detain the person to investigate whether the person is in possession of a quantity of marijuana that would subject the person to a civil penalty, i.e., less than 10 grams. Because we conclude that the odor of marijuana provides reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense, thereby justifying the investigatory detention that occurred in this case, we need not address the State’s alternative argument concerning investigation and enforcement of the civil penalties under CR § 5-601(c)(2)(ii). 27 viable notwithstanding the recent decriminalization of the possession of not more than 10 grams of marijuana” and “find[ing] that the search and seizure of respondent did not run afoul of the fourth amendment”; “Given that Illinois prohibits the knowing possession of marijuana and prohibits operating a vehicle while impaired and under the influence of marijuana, the distinctive odor of marijuana was indicative of criminal activity and provided the officers with reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was afoot.”); People v. Zuniga, 372 P.3d 1052, 1059 (Colo. 2016) (although state law permits possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, because other marijuana-related activities remain unlawful, “the odor of marijuana is still suggestive of criminal activity”); State v. Senna, 79 A.3d 45, 50-51 (Vt. 2013) (medical marijuana exemption from prosecution for marijuana possession “does not undermine the significance of the smell of marijuana as an indicator of criminal activity”). To be sure, courts in several other states have held or suggested that, given changes in their laws regarding marijuana, the odor of the drug alone does not provide reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Meneide, 52 N.E.3d 167 , 171 n.4 (Mass.

App. Ct. 2016) (“The smell of burnt or unburnt marijuana, standing alone, no longer provides either reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”); State v. Moore, 488 P.3d 816, 821 (Or. Ct. App. 2021) (although a “very strong” odor of unburnt marijuana may be consistent with criminal activity, because adults may legally possess certain quantities of marijuana in Oregon, the odor by itself does not provide reasonable suspicion of an unlawful amount of marijuana); People v. Brukner, 25 N.Y.S.3d 559, 572 (N.Y. City Ct. 2015) (concluding that “the mere odor of marihuana emanating from a pedestrian, 28 without more, does not create reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred”) (emphasis deleted); cf. State v. Francisco Perez, 239 A.3d 975 , 985 (N.H. 2020) (odor of marijuana “may serve as a basis for a reasonable suspicion that activities involving marijuana, that are indeed criminal, are underway, when considered among the totality of circumstances”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, we find the reasoning of cases such as Looby and O.S. more persuasive, as well as more consistent with our body of marijuana-related Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Here, the juvenile court correctly ruled that the initial seizure of D.D. and his companions was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

The court credited Sergeant Walden’s testimony that the officers smelled the strong odor of marijuana when they encountered the group upon entering the building.10 Directing the group to stop and sit on the steps while the officers briefly investigated whether their behavior constituted a criminal offense was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It was a relatively minor intrusion on the group’s freedom of movement. If no probable cause of a criminal offense had developed, the group would have been free to go on its way in short order. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 126 (2000) (“If the officer does not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, the individual must be allowed to go on his way.”); Trott v. State, 473 Md. 245, 269 (in case involving seizure of a defendant in his car, explaining that, if the 10 The parties believe that this case concerns the odor of marijuana alone – i.e., whether the odor provides reasonable suspicion to conduct a brief investigatory detention.

The Court of Special Appeals viewed it that way as well. We granted certiorari in this case to decide this important question. Having considered the arguments of the parties, we conclude that we should accept their framing of the issue. 29 officer had not smelled alcohol on the driver’s breath, “the stop would have ended, and [the defendant] would have been free to go”), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 240 (2021). However, as discussed below, a frisk of D.D. for weapons led to the discovery of a loaded firearm in his waistband.

We now consider the validity of that pat-down under the Fourth Amendment. B. The Pat-Down of D.D. D.D. argues that Sergeant Walden lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that he was armed and dangerous before frisking him. D.D. interprets Sergeant Walden’s testimony at the suppression hearing as revealing an unconstitutional policy to always frisk the members of a group when officers are outnumbered, whether or not the particular circumstances suggest that anyone in the group may be armed and dangerous. In addition, D.D. contends that Sergeant Walden unreasonably viewed his behavior and that of his companions as “evasive.” Regarding the discovery of the suspected handgun on D.D.’s companion, D.D. argues that this Court should not accept the proposition that “if there’s one weapon, there could be more.” Further, D.D. asserts that the other factors Sergeant Walden relied on in concluding that D.D. might be armed and dangerous – including his baggy clothing and the officers’ detection of the odor of marijuana – provide no support for the pat-down.

According to D.D., an apt description of the State’s showing regarding the frisk is “zero plus zero plus zero still equals zero.” Thus, in D.D.’s view, the totality of the circumstances in this case “does not come close” to satisfying the reasonable suspicion standard. The State contends that its showing at the suppression hearing was not an offering of several zeroes that cumulatively added up to zero. Rather, according to the State, 30 Sergeant Walden’s decision to frisk D.D. was supported by reasonable suspicion that D.D. may have been armed and dangerous. Among other factors, the State relies on the discovery of the weapon on J. and on Sergeant Walden’s assessment of the behavior of D.D. and his companions as evasive.

We agree with the State. A police officer is not permitted to frisk a person just because the officer has detained the person to investigate whether criminal activity is afoot. See Simpler v. State, 318 Md. 311, 319 (1990) (explaining that “a reasonable frisk does not inevitably follow in the wake of every reasonable stop”). Rather, during a Terry stop, a police officer may pat down an individual for weapons if the officer “has reason to believe that [the officer] is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual.” Sellman v. State, 449 Md. 526, 541 (2016) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 ).

The purpose of this “limited search, known in common parlance as a frisk, is not to discover evidence, but rather to protect the police officer and bystanders from harm.” Id. at 542 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A law enforcement officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous where, under the totality of the circumstances, and based on reasonable inferences from particularized facts in light of the law enforcement officer’s experience, a reasonably prudent law enforcement officer would have felt that he or she was in danger.” Norman, 452 Md. at 387 . As we said in Sellman, reasonable suspicion is a common sense, nontechnical conception that considers factual and practical aspects of daily life and how reasonable and prudent people act. While the level of required suspicion is less than that required by the probable cause standard, reasonable suspicion nevertheless embraces something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch…. [A] court’s 31 determination of whether a law enforcement officer acted with reasonable suspicion must be based on the totality of the circumstances. Thus, the court must not parse out each individual circumstance for separate consideration.

In making its assessment, the court should give due deference to the training and experience of the law enforcement officer who engaged the stop at issue. Such deference allows officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might well elude an untrained person. To be sure, a factor that, by itself, may be entirely neutral and innocent, can, when viewed in combination with other circumstances, raise a legitimate suspicion in the mind of an experienced officer. Sellman, 449 Md. at 543 (quoting Crosby, 408 Md. at 507-08 ) (cleaned up).

The test that a reviewing court applies “is objective: the validity of the stop or the frisk is not determined by the subjective or articulated reasons of the officer; rather, the validity of the stop or frisk is determined by whether the record discloses articulable objective facts to support the stop or frisk.” Id. at 542 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Based on the totality of the circumstances in this case, we conclude that the officers had reasonable suspicion that D.D. was armed and dangerous. As such, the gun recovered from D.D.’s waistband was the fruit of a lawful frisk, and the juvenile court correctly declined to suppress it. Sergeant Walden’s proffered reasons for the pat-down included the “odor of marijuana,” the group’s “evasive body language,” and the fact that there were “five of them in baggy clothes” in a place “where they could run out the door.” The juvenile court credited Sergeant Walden’s testimony “regarding the response from some of the males in response to his questions,” and “that the young man was evasive.” In addition, before Sergeant Walden frisked D.D., Officer Moser discovered a suspected handgun in J.’s waistband that J. said was a BB gun.

These circumstances, viewed collectively, would lead 32 a reasonably prudent law enforcement officer to suspect that D.D. was armed and dangerous. Evasive behavior is a factor that may support a pat-down for weapons. See, e.g., Flowers v. State, 195 A.3d 18, 27-28 (Del. 2018) (suspect’s turning his body away from advancing officers contributed to reasonable suspicion that he might be armed); United States v. Dortch, 868 F.3d 674, 680 (8th Cir. 2017) (suspect responded to the sight of an approaching officer by “pressing the front of his body” against a vehicle “as to further conceal what, if anything, he had in his coat”); United States v. Diriye, 818 F.3d 767, 769 (8th Cir. 2016) (subject “appeared to be continuously turning his body to keep his right side away from” the officer, which caused the officer to suspect that the subject may have a gun); United States v. Patton, 705 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2013) (describing a suspect who “set himself apart from the other men” by not complying with an officers’ instruction and taking a number of steps backward). Here, D.D. and his companions appeared evasive to Sergeant Walden, a 21-year veteran of the Department.

None of the members of the group would tell the officers where they lived. After Sergeant Walden specifically asked D.D. where he lived, D.D. shrugged his shoulders and did not respond. D.D. then responded to the same question from Officer Moser by saying “my dick.” The group was snickering, laughing, and being uncooperative. In addition, unlike the other four young men in the group, D.D. chose to sit on the staircase that led him to have his back to the officers.

D.D.’s positioning prevented Sergeant Walden from seeing D.D.’s hands. Even when D.D. spoke, he kept his body turned away from the 33 officers. Sergeant Walden believed that D.D.’s “evasive body language” indicated that he might be armed. As D.D. points out, Sergeant Walden did not direct D.D. to sit on the descending staircase.

Thus, according to D.D., because he complied with Sergeant Walden’s directive to sit down, Sergeant Walden should not have been concerned by the fact that D.D.’s back was to him and that he could not see D.D.’s hands. But Sergeant Walden was not required to rule out every innocent explanation for D.D.’s behavior. Nor is it realistic to expect an officer to engage in such fine analysis when deciding whether to pat someone down for weapons, given that the safety of police officers and third parties may be at stake. In our view, it was reasonable for Sergeant Walden to be concerned that he could not see D.D.’s hands and what D.D. was doing.

In addition to the evasive behavior and body language that Sergeant Walden observed prior to any of the group members being frisked, it is significant that Officer Moser discovered a weapon in the waistband of J., the first young man the officers frisked. 34 Assuming the weapon was a BB gun as J. claimed,11 BB guns can be lethal.12 Once Sergeant Walden knew that another member of the group was armed with some sort of gun, his level of suspicion concerning D.D. reasonably increased. This is not to say that whenever one member of a group is found to possess a weapon, officers necessarily have reasonable suspicion to believe that every other member of the group may be armed and dangerous, thereby automatically justifying a pat-down of all companions present. See United States v. Matías-Maestres, 738 F. Supp. 2d 281, 289 (D.P.R. 2010) (discovery of handgun on driver of car did not justify frisk of passenger, where there was no other basis to suspect that the passenger may be armed and dangerous). However, the possession of a weapon by one member of a group is a highly significant factor that, in combination with other circumstances, may well support a pat-down for weapons of other members of the group.

See El-Amin v. Commonwealth, 607 S.E.2d 115, 118-19 (Va. 2005) (after a frisk of one member of a group revealed a pellet gun, another officer patted down El-Amin and discovered a .38 caliber revolver; although the Virginia 11 The juvenile court did not make a finding as to whether the weapon removed from J.’s waistband was a BB gun or whether the officers had reason to believe the weapon was a BB gun before Sergeant Walden frisked D.D. It is well known that BB guns are difficult to tell apart from “real” guns. See Megan Raposa, Real or fake guns: Can you tell the difference?, Argus Leader (Mar. 4, 2016), available at https://perma.cc/7VB9-VR5K (according to a Captain in the Minnehaha County Sheriff’s Office, “[e]ven in the best light in the best possible conditions, it is