In a recent decision, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that a “bulge” in a defendant’s carryall bag was insufficient to justify a Terry stop-and-frisk by police officers under the Constitution. See Robinson v. State, Case No. 0269, September Term, 2024 (Appellate Court of Maryland, July 17, 2025).

Stop-and-frisk cases are mostly governed by a U.S. Supreme Court case called Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars the police from engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that, generally speaking, the people are protected from the police engaged in random stops and searches. However, Terry identified certain circumstances where the police are justified in stopping a person on the street for a limited time. Further, Terry also identified circumstances where a limited frisk of a person so stopped is permissible. These are separate police activities, and each must have its own justification.

The “stop” part of a stop-and-frisk can be justified if the police have actual reasons to believe the person being stopped was recently involved in a criminal act, was currently committing a criminal act, or was about to engage in criminal acts in the very near future. A stop can ALSO be constitutionally justified if the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person being stopped was, is, or will be engaged in criminal behavior. That “reasonable suspicion” must be more than a “hunch” by the police officer. The officer must be able to state and articulate specific facts, behavior, or other things that gave rise to the suspicion. If the officer cannot sufficiently justify his or her “reasonable suspicion,” then the stop is not legally permissible. If this is the case, then evidence seized following an unconstitutional stop will be barred from being used as evidence against the accused.

In the case under discussion — Robinson v. State — the Maryland Court of Appeals held that a bulge in a man’s pocket or in a carryall bag is not sufficient to create the “reasonable suspicion” that is necessary to justify a stop-n-frisk. The police argued that the “bulge” seen in the defendant’s carryall bag was sufficient for the police to reasonably suspect that the defendant was carrying a firearm in the bag. However, the trial court noted that, while a “noticeable bulge in a man’s waist area may well reasonably indicate that the man is armed,” the same bulge might also indicate that the man was carrying “innocent personal objects” like a wallet, money clip, keys, change, cell phones, cigarettes, etc. The trial court held that a bulge in a man’s pocket or his carryall bag was, on its own, not enough to create the “reasonable suspicion” necessary for a Terry stop or frisk. This view was upheld by the Maryland Court of Appeals.

In addition, the court rejected the argument that a bulge with a “straight line” created reasonable suspicion. The police said that the bulge in Robinson’s carry-all had a “straight edge” which, to the officers, suggested a gun barrel. However, again, the judge rejected the argument. The court noted that many innocent items have a “straight line” as part of the “general shape” of the object. Examples listed included books, notebook binders, tablet computers, etc. In conclusion, the court held and affirmed that a “bulge” in a carryall bag — even a bulge with a “straight line” as part of the shape of the bulge — was not sufficient, without more, to justify a Terry stop-n-frisk.

Contact Waldorf, Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyer Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions, contact our office to speak to an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer at (301) 870-1200. We are Waldorf, MD, Criminal Defense lawyers. Our address is 2670 Crain Highway, Waldorf, MD 20601.