Court Slaps Cops: Guns ≠ Suspicion

A Maryland court just told police they cannot treat every gun owner like a criminal, and that changes everything about stop-and-frisk on our streets.

Story Snapshot

Maryland’s Appellate Court ruled police cannot stop someone based only on suspected handgun possession.
The court said carrying a handgun is “presumptively legal,” so a gun alone is not proof of crime.^[2]
The stop and frisk of Steven Hicks in Baltimore was ruled unconstitutional, and the evidence must be thrown out.
The ruling ties the Second Amendment right to carry with strong Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.^[2]^[6]

Maryland Court Says Gun Carry Is Presumptively Legal

The Appellate Court of Maryland ruled that police may not stop a person just because they suspect that person is carrying a handgun.^[2] The judges said handgun possession in Maryland is now “presumptively legal,” so simply having or appearing to have a gun is not, by itself, evidence of criminal activity.^[2]^[6] The court stressed that officers must point to other clear facts that suggest a crime, not just a hunch that the person might lack a permit or license.^[2]^[6]

The case grew out of the stop of Steven Hicks in Baltimore City, where officers focused on suspected handgun possession and quickly moved to stop and frisk him. The court found that when police seized Hicks, they had no reasonable suspicion of any crime beyond the bare idea that he might have a gun. Because carry is generally lawful, the judges held that the stop and the pat-down both violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

How This Changes Stop-and-Frisk and Terry Stops

For decades, “Terry stops” have allowed officers to briefly detain someone when they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and to frisk if they reasonably believe the person is armed and dangerous.^[3] Maryland courts have repeated that officers need “specific and articulable facts,” not guesses, to justify both the stop and the frisk.^[3]^[4] In the Hicks ruling, the court applied that same standard but made clear that a firearm, standing alone, no longer counts as that kind of suspicious fact.^[2]^[6]

The opinion separates two questions that often get blurred on the street: when officers may stop someone, and when they may then frisk that person.^[2]^[3] The court said police still can frisk during a lawful stop if they have a real safety concern and the person is believed to be armed and dangerous.^[2]^[3] But the key change is this: officers cannot bootstrap the stop itself from the simple fact that a gun might be present.^[2]^[6] They need an independent reason to think a crime is taking place before they ever get to the frisk.^[2]^[3]

State Law, Bruen, and What This Means for Gun Owners

Maryland’s handgun statute does let an officer inquire and perform a limited pat-down if the officer reasonably believes someone is carrying a handgun in violation of the law and may be dangerous.^[8] Prosecutors argued this language supported the stop of Hicks. But the court answered that once handgun carry is broadly lawful, the officer must have specific facts suggesting a violation of the handgun law, not just the “mere possibility” that a license is missing.^[2]^[8] The statute does not erase the constitutional need for reasonable suspicion.^[8]

The ruling fits a wider trend after the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, which held that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a right to carry handguns in public for self-defense.^[6] As more states treat public carry as a normal, protected exercise of the Second Amendment, courts are being asked if officers can still treat any visible or suspected gun as grounds for a stop.^[2]^[6] The Maryland court answered that question with a firm “no,” aligning gun rights with strong Fourth Amendment limits on government power.^[2]^[6]

Why Conservatives Should Care About the Hicks Decision

This decision matters for readers who care about both gun rights and limited government. The court held that the stop and frisk of Hicks were unconstitutional, and ordered that the evidence from that encounter be suppressed. That means the state cannot benefit in court from an illegal seizure. Many gun owners have long feared that hostile local officials would use stop-and-frisk as a backdoor way to harass lawful carriers. This ruling cuts off that tactic in Maryland going forward.^[2]

Conservatives also remember how big city stop-and-frisk policies were abused. A federal judge ruled that New York City’s mass stop-and-frisk program violated both the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment by targeting people, often young minority men, without real suspicion.^[1]^[5] The Hicks case is not about race statistics, but it travels the same road: courts reminding government that safety concerns cannot wipe away basic rights. In Maryland now, carrying a gun is treated as what it should be for law-abiding citizens—a constitutional freedom, not automatic probable cause.^[2]^[6]