Holt v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtBarbera, C.J.
It is settled that a law enforcement officer may conduct an investigatory stop of an individual if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30-31, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Reasonable suspicion is not a demanding standard, but it does require more than an “unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” Id. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (internal quotations omitted). In the present case, we must determine whether two Baltimore City detectives had a valid basis to conduct an investigatory stop of Petitioner Jamar Holt.1 For the reasons…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Whren v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- United States v. CortezSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Adams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Sibron v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Pacheco v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2019
- Sellman v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016
- Sizer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2017
- Norman v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2017
- Thornton v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2019
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.