Sellman v. State

In this case, Petitioner, Donzel Sellman (“Sellman”), challenges the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained after a Terry frisk.1 He argues that the law enforce*531ment officers did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the frisk. We agree that, under the totality of the circumstances, the facts of this case fall short of the reasonable suspicion standard, under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1884, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 911 (1968), and therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The relevant facts are taken from…