BALTIMORE — Maryland police cannot stop someone based only on seeing or suspecting a concealed handgun, the Appellate Court of Maryland ruled in a reported in banc opinion that could significantly affect firearm-related stops across the state.
The June 4, 2026, ruling reversed the Baltimore City conviction of Steven Hicks, who was stopped by police in 2023 after officers observed what they believed was a handgun printing through his shirt. Officers later recovered two handguns and cocaine during a warrantless stop and search.
Writing for the court, Judge Deborah S. Graeff concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen changed the legal landscape by recognizing a constitutional right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
That change matters, the court held, because carrying a handgun for self-defense is now presumptively lawful. As a result, the mere possession of a concealed firearm, by itself, does not give police reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed.
“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 court wrote. “The police must have reasonable suspicion that the person is possessing the gun illegally or otherwise engaged in criminal activity.”
The case began July 5, 2023, when Baltimore City detectives in an unmarked vehicle were near the intersection of St. Charles Avenue and Belvedere Avenue. A detective observed the outline of a handgun near Hicks’ waistband under his shirt.
When officers approached, Hicks immediately stated that he had a license and asked if he could retrieve it, according to the opinion. Instead, officers handcuffed him, removed a holstered handgun from his waistband and continued the encounter.
Officers later recovered a second firearm from Hicks’ cross-body bag and cocaine from his pants pocket. The opinion states Hicks had a valid firearm permit with an expiration date of Feb. 28, 2026.
Hicks was indicted in Baltimore City on multiple drug and firearm offenses. After the circuit court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, Hicks entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm with a nexus to a drug trafficking crime. He was sentenced to five years in prison without the possibility of parole.
The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding the stop violated the Fourth Amendment because officers relied only on Hicks’ possession of a gun and did not have specific facts showing he was carrying it illegally or otherwise involved in criminal activity.
The ruling does not prevent officers from taking safety precautions during lawful stops involving firearms. The court rejected Hicks’ broader argument that officers may never conduct a Terry frisk when a lawfully stopped person is armed.
Because a gun is a dangerous weapon, the court held, officers may conduct a limited frisk for weapons when a person has been lawfully stopped and is armed, regardless of whether the firearm is legally or illegally carried.
But in Hicks’ case, the court found the search went beyond what Terry allows.
A Terry frisk is generally limited to a pat-down of outer clothing unless officers can show that a pat-down would not be enough to determine whether someone is armed. The court found officers exceeded that limit by reaching into Hicks’ bag and pockets.
The state also failed to prove that the plain view or plain feel doctrines justified the seizure of the second gun and drugs. The officer who recovered the items did not testify at the suppression hearing, leaving the record without enough evidence to support the search.
Several judges filed concurring opinions. Some agreed the evidence should be suppressed but argued the case could have been resolved on the narrower issue that the frisk exceeded constitutional limits, without deciding how Bruen affects firearm stops more broadly.
The decision is one of Maryland’s most significant appellate rulings on police firearm stops since Bruen. Its practical effect is clear: seeing or suspecting a concealed firearm alone is not enough for a stop unless officers can point to specific facts suggesting illegal possession or another crime.
The case now returns to the lower court after the appellate court found the trial judge erred in denying Hicks’ motion to suppress.
Got a tip or photo? Text us at 888-871-NEWS (6397) or email news@thebaynet.com.
Join The BayNet Membership for exclusive perks and zero ads.
Don’t miss a story—sign up for our newsletter!
The post Maryland Appeals Court: Police Need More Than Gun Possession Alone To Stop Someone appeared first on The BayNet.
